Video: Dick Durbin Blames Filibuster For Why Dems Haven't Passed Budget

Problem is, a Democratic Party budget in the Senate wasn't filibustered the last two years for one simple reason: DEMOCRATS IN POWER NEVER PROPOSED ONE! What's it been - more than 800 days now since Dems in the Senate abdicated that basic duty? Durbins response here was worse than dodging. It was pure idiocy:

How does a US Senator not know that it takes a simple majority to pass a budget, not 60 votes? Even setting that aside, the Dems did have 60 votes until the 2010 elections. They didn't propose or pass a budget during that time either.

Obama: Cutting Budget Would Prevent Reducing the Deficit or Something

OK, so you were stupid and maxed out the credit card. Your argument for raising the borrowing limit on it? Because if you stop spending you can't bring the credit card bill down. Yeah, I know it's absurd, but that very notion came out of the mouth of our community organizer-in-chief. From The Hill via moonbattery:

Proposed House cuts to the Executive Office of the President’s (EOP) budget will hurt administration efforts to cut the deficit, the White House argues.

The Obama administration made the argument in comments on H.R. 2434, the 2012 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act. That bill could be on the House floor as early as next week, and would decrease funding for the EOP from $705 million to $640 million.

“The level of resources provided in the bill would significantly impact the EOP’s role in assisting the president in carrying out his constitutional duties as head of the executive branch, including … reducing the deficit…” the administration said in a statement of administration policy (SAP) [PDF].

From $705 to $640? That's it? And that's too much to ask for? So much for that shared sacrifice bs.  Meanwhile, this is what we're staring at thanks to Obama and the Democratic Party:

Via the Cato Institute via moonbattery

Cut, Cap and Balance Passes US House 234-190

Your move, Obama:

 

Plus: "Leading on reporters is not leadership"

Pajamas Media: Will Republicans Fold in Debt-Limit Talks?

It was looking that way until recently:

Via memeorandum: Like Reagan at Reykjavik, Boehner passes on a bad deal. And it's a good thing. Raising taxes always materializes, while promises of spending cuts never do. In the end, it would have made the problem worse, not better. And from Sarah Palin on her FB account: The Sugar Daddy Has Run Out of Sugar; Now We Need New Leaders

Barack Obama’s big government policies continue to fail. He should put a link to the national debt clock on his BlackBerry. The gears on that clock have nearly exploded during his administration. Yesterday’s terrible job numbers should not be a surprise because it all goes back to our debt. Our dangerously unsustainable debt is wiping out our jobs, crippling our economic growth, and jeopardizing our position in the global economy as the leader of the free world.

...The same “experts” who got us into this mess are now telling us that the only way out of our debt crisis is to “increase revenue,” but not by creating more jobs and therefore a larger tax base; no, they want to “increase revenue” by raising taxes on job creators who are taxed enough already! As Margaret Thatcher said, “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” That’s where we are now. Hard working taxpayers have been big government’s Sugar Daddy for far too long, and now we’re out of sugar. We don’t want big government, we can’t afford it, and we are unwilling to pay for it.

Darned right! Read the whole thing. More from Patterico's Pontifications, NewsBusters, Wizbang, Hot Air, Weasel Zippers, Conservatives4Palin, National Review, Don Surber, Pirate's Cove, Outside the Beltway, Power Line, Weasel Zippers and The Lonely Conservative  

UPDATE: Obama vs. Obama 

In a 75-minute meeting Sunday night, President Obama once again demanded that more than $1 trillion in tax increases be part of any deficit reduction package attached to a vote on the debt ceiling. In the session, Obama rejected a Republican proposal to seek $2.5 trillion in spending cuts and reforms, and insisted on higher taxes on businesses and wealthy individuals.

It’s a curious position, given the anemic economic growth and rising unemployment. And it’s even more curious considering that Obama himself has warned about the deleterious effects of raising taxes in a struggling economy.

In August 2009, on a visit to Elkhart, Indiana to tout his stimulus plan, Obama sat down for an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd, and was conveyed a simple request from Elkhart resident Scott Ferguson: “Explain how raising taxes on anyone during a deep recession is going to help with the economy.”

Obama agreed with Ferguson’s premise – raising taxes in a recession is a bad idea. “First of all, he’s right. Normally, you don’t raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven’t and why we’ve instead cut taxes. So I guess what I’d say to Scott is – his economics are right. You don’t raise taxes in a recession. We haven’t raised taxes in a recession.”

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE #2: Ain't this the truth (from Pundit & Pundette via memorandum): All Dems want is more taxing and spending