What are you talking about? The Democrats in the senate have intentionally failed to pass a budget for over a 1,000 days simply so that they can blame the Republicans for doing nothing. Obama lied about the negotiations he had with Republicans, who apparently were willing to give him what he wanted, just so he could play politics and claim the Republicans refused to make a deal.

The Democrat party can be summarized as follows:

The Democrats used the finincial crisis as cover to spend money to reward their friends, punish their enemies, consolidate their power, and push through their radical ideology into policy. They did nothing to fix the underlying problems that caused the crisis in the first place, and put in place policies that will exacerbate the problem in the future. They did not waste the crisis.

They naively thought that they could do all this while blaming Bush, and that the economy would bounce back no matter what policies they put in place, because it always does... right? They thought they could get the best of both worlds... credit for the recovery, and credit for all the new give-aways, all while blaming Republicans for everything in the world that goes wrong.

The problem they're having is that economics trump politics and any attempt to build a Utopian world where everyone is free from want and lives out of his neighbor's pocket is doomed to end very badly.

Over 50% of entitlement spending is spent on the elderly. The Republicans simply try to appeal to their base with a backward social agenda that limits freedom while enriching the very ones that received so many of the tax cuts from the Bush administration....and the get votes from people that they are hurting by repealing laws and programs that become a safety net.
If you're not careful, you'll vote in the very ones that will rob you of any safety net. Maybe not you, or your immediate family, but someone you know and care about needs a safety net, if not today...soon. Will it be there? Not if the Republican agenda gets through.
Oh, Boehner thought he had a deal. Could not pull his Tea Party Freshmen on board. Norquist did not approve. The Speaker does not have control and the Republicans have caused the gridlock we see today.
Each party needs to step up, but at least the Democrats are not trying to demolish society.

RB

Then you agree that "ALL" the Bush tax cuts should be syopped?

RB,
You can't buy me off with my childrens' money, so don't even try. I would give up every claim I have to government goodies if I could get my kids out of the Ponzi scheme. Show me where to sign.

Is anyone with me?

Gary, buy you off? Would that be similar to Dold selling his and the districts future to the Tea Party in order to get elected. Ask Grover Norquist about buying someone off. Not me.

Can you provide an intelligent reason why a budget can't include new revenue? That's the Republican position. This budget impasse is caused by the Republican refusal to include new revenue. Most of the Freshmen signed the Norquist pledge, so they are bound by that. There is no reasonable way to balance the budget without spending cuts AND new revenue. To think and act otherwise is both stupid and pandering to get votes.

New revenue RB? Higher taxes? Give the federal government more money so that they spend more money?

Let's see the federal budget. During Obama's watch in the White House no federal budget has been passed. When the Democrats controlled the House, Senate and the White House, they didn't even pass a budget!

And you want to give them more money when they refuse to tell you (by failing to pass a budget) what they plan to spend it on? Does that make you a disciple of the Nancy "you can read the (healthcare) bill after we pass it" Pelosi?

Where is the budget?

Sending another progressive (i.e. "liberal") Democrat who would perpetuate this nonsense is not the answer. And the voters in the 10th are sharp enough to figure that out!

Louis, you can't balance the budget without including new net revenue. By the way. Did you know the Ryan plan will result in individuals being taxed for the value of benefits provided by their employer? Yep! Let's say someone is lucky enough to work for a company that pays for the bulk of the healthcare premium. Just for grins, let's say the company picks up $750 a month and the employee pays $100. Under the Ryan plan, the employee will pay taxes on the $650 per month difference. Technically, revenue neutral.
I don't think it's fair for Congress to do that to the average American working stiff, but won't roll back tax cuts for the extremely wealthy.
Fixing this mess takes a balanced approach and does not put the weight of the balancing on the lower and middle class. It's not fair, it's not just, it's not American!

Mr Dold joined the other Tea Party Freshmen and voted to shut the Government down when time to compromise, resulting in a lowering of the USA credit rating. How Independent was that? Not Independent at all.