Any of you Obama worshipers want to defend this?

[TripletDaddy]

What is alarming and seems to be the MO for Obama is his desire to circumvent the laws of our country for his own purposes. I think the posturing by the Admin. in this is what is bothersome more than anything..

meh. Reagan did this a lot and we all loved him. You obviously are too young to have any real recollection of the Iran Contra hearings.

[dabrockster]

meh. Reagan did this a lot and we all loved him. You obviously are too young to have any real recollection of the Iran Contra hearings.

How DARE you put him in the same category as Obama!!!!!

[il Padrino Ute]

If the administration was the party responsible for holding up the budget I think we'd all agree with you. But at this point the budget is being held up by Republicans intent on creating as much drama as possible. The administration, however, bears the sole responsibility for dealing with the mess created upon the contractors as a results of the obstructionist Republican budget hold-up. I don't blame them one bit for taking action to protect our contractors from the negative actions of the Republicans in holding up the budget.

LOL @ your suggestion that the administration "just pass a budget." I looked for a white-text smiley afterward because I assumed you were joking. Now I'm horrified by the idea that you post so much in the political categories while it's becoming clear that you actually... well... you're kindof dumb.

What the hell are you talking about Tim? It's been more than 3 years since the Senate has passed a budget and both the House and the Senate have rejected time and time again a budget that Obama wants.

[TripletDaddy]

How DARE you put him in the same category as Obama!!!!!

they belong in various similar categories.

Both of them are two-term US Presidents, for example.

[dabrockster]

they belong in various similar categories.

Both of them are two-term US Presidents, for example.

[calicoug]

You must not have read the article. The administration is telling contractors not to give the 60 day notice, and that the feds (the taxpayers) will pick up the tab for the employee compensation costs - but only if the contractors forego the 60 day notice period. In other words, "don't tell your employees that they may be laid off soon (as the law requires), and we'll have your back."

You just said what I said then acted like you didn't. Very odd.

[All-American]

Of course this postpones the process of layoffs. What is step one in a layoff process? Notify the employees. Is that going to happen as soon now as it otherwise would? There's your answer as to whether the process is being postponed.

. . . if it is being followed at all.

[Pelado]

You just said what I said then acted like you didn't. Very odd.

Where did I say that the lack of notice will postpone layoffs?

[Uncle Ted]

What the hell are you talking about Tim? It's been more than 3 years since the Senate has passed a budget and both the House and the Senate have rejected time and time again a budget that Obama wants.

Obviously both democrats and republicans in congress are obstructionist given they both voted against Obama's proposed budgets. Obama should just pass the budget by executive order. Who needs congress anyway?

[calicoug]

Where did I say that the lack of notice will postpone layoffs?

You aren't reading closely. It postpones the PROCESS of the layoffs (which was going to begin without the administration's actions). Whether or not the actual layoffs will ever occur is very much an open question. That's why it was important to not begin the layoff process. You can't unring that bell. So if it turns out the layoffs won't happen, it's far better that employees not have received notice they were going to be laid off.

[calicoug]

Obviously both democrats and republicans in congress are obstructionist given they both voted against Obama's proposed budgets. Obama should just pass the budget by executive order. Who needs congress anyway?

What Republicans presented was not Obama's budget. It was a shell of a budget that eliminated all policy language from Obama's proposal (which gives all of the specifics of how spending ought to be allocated). Republicans then presented the bill as "Obama's budget," but it was, and remains, a gimmick. Even the White House told Senators to vote against it.

[calicoug]

Which house of the government has failed to pass a budget for at least 3 years? Which branch of the government could not get a single vote in favor of its budget - even members of their own party. The budget is not a winning argument for Democrats.

"House of the government?" That's not a thing. And see above for the budget question.

[Pelado]

What Republicans presented was not Obama's budget. It was a shell of a budget that eliminated all policy language from Obama's proposal (which gives all of the specifics of how spending ought to be allocated). Republicans then presented the bill as "Obama's budget," but it was, and remains, a gimmick. Even the White House told Senators to vote against it.

"House of the government?" That's not a thing. And see above for the budget question.

OK, so you're saying the Senate, in dereliction of its duties, has not passed any budget for over 3 years because the WH said so? Now that is leadership.

[calicoug]

OK, so you're saying the Senate, in dereliction of its duties, has not passed any budget for over 3 years because the WH said so? Now that is leadership.

No. I am saying the Senate didn't pass the sham budget presented by Republicans and Democrats didn't support it because it was a sham. Other budgets haven't passed because Republicans are filibustering everything.

[Pelado]

No. I am saying the Senate didn't pass the sham budget presented by Republicans and Democrats didn't support it because it was a sham. Other budgets haven't passed because Republicans are filibustering everything.

When was the last Republican filibuster of a budget in the Senate? The last budget vote in the Senate?