obama blasts congress for inaction

PostmodernProphet said:
ah, no need to do what they are supposed to do when liberals don't care what they do.........on the other hand, liberals complain that the House, which IS doing something, isn't doing something.......ironic, isn't it......
Click to expand...

As I said (and you conveniently ignored), the way it should work is that the House passes its version of a bill by majority vote. The Senate passes its version of a bill by majority vote. The conflicting bills go to conference committee and the differences are ironed out.

But it doesn't work that way because the Senate Republicans filibuster everything.

Also, too, I don't want the House to do "something." I want the House to do something productive. Not much of that happening.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
As I said (and you conveniently ignored), the way it should work is that the House passes its version of a bill by majority vote. That was done. The Senate passes its version of a bill by majority vote. The conflicting bills go to conference committee and the differences are ironed out. That was not done.

But it doesn't work that way because the Senate Republicans filibuster everything. You can't filibuster a budget, therefore you are wrong.

Also, too, I don't want the House to do "something." I want the House to do something productive. They passed a budget Not much of that happening.
Click to expand...

in summary, the House has done something, the Senate has not.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
they rejected five, counting Obama's.....a budget won't get into reconciliation unless they pass one......why won't Reid let one into reconciliation?.....
Click to expand...


Reid doesn't get to cast 51 votes. It's not a matter of letting anyone do anything. Contrary to your claim, the Senate has voted on budgets, it just hasn't passed one.

All this budget nonsense is stupid. The parties agreed to spending levels already. Quit wasting time with this dumbassery and focus on appropriations bills.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Reid doesn't get to cast 51 votes. It's not a matter of letting anyone do anything. Contrary to your claim, the Senate has voted on budgets, it just hasn't passed one.

All this budget nonsense is stupid. The parties agreed to spending levels already. Quit wasting time with this dumbassery and focus on appropriations bills.
Click to expand...

we aren't supposed to operate on appropriations bills......we are supposed to operate on a budget.....Reid will not permit the Senate to pass a budget.....that is the only dumbassery involved....
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Reid doesn't get to cast 51 votes. It's not a matter of letting anyone do anything. Contrary to your claim, the Senate has voted on budgets, it just hasn't passed one.

All this budget nonsense is stupid. The parties agreed to spending levels already. Quit wasting time with this dumbassery and focus on appropriations bills.
Click to expand...

What is the benefit, if any, to passing appropriation bills as opposed to a budget?
 
cawacko said:
What is the benefit, if any, to passing appropriation bills as opposed to a budget?
Click to expand...

Well appropriations bills actually appropriate money and have the force of law while budget resolutions do not have the force of law and merely establish spending levels to guide the appropriations process. Appropriations bills matter. Budget resolutions don't.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Well appropriations bills actually appropriate money and have the force of law while budget resolutions do not have the force of law and merely establish spending levels to guide the appropriations process. Appropriations bills matter. Budget resolutions don't.
Click to expand...

Why does the President and Congress even waste their time then proposing budgets if they don't really matter? All for partisan show?
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
You have no point. Pretty much everything you ever write is wrong in some respect or another.

Also, too, pretending that Republican gimmicks are something other than Republican gimmicks is asinine. Enjoy. Just don't expect me to take anything you say seriously.
Click to expand...

Says the guy that says they filibuster the budgets. It's just flat wrong. I understand that you were embarrassed, but it really isn't that big of a deal. Just say, "Oh, I didn't know that." and move on rather than try to push back.

You are simply trying to distract now.
 
cawacko said:
Why does the President and Congress even waste their time then proposing budgets if they don't really matter? All for partisan show?
Click to expand...

Because the constitution says that the Senate will pass a budget every year. He's mixing words. Budget resolutions are something other than the Budget itself. Appropriations bills are for off-budget spending.
 
Darla said:
Your grammar is impeccable. I always mean to mention that. Has anyone else ever noticed this about Onceler? It's actually impeccable.
Click to expand...


Its his logic that is irrational.......but it is well written.....it has to be, hes the spelling/grammar Nazi of the board.
 
cawacko said:
Why does the President and Congress even waste their time then proposing budgets if they don't really matter? All for partisan show?
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to suggest that they don't matter at all, though I kinda did say that. I just meant that they don't have the force of law and aren't as important as appropriations bills (note budgets are resolutions, not bills) .

By the way, Damo has no idea what he is talking about so best to ignore him on these matters.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
I didn't mean to suggest that they don't matter at all, though I kinda did say that. I just meant that they don't have the force of law and aren't as important as appropriations bills (note budgets are resolutions, not bills) .

By the way, Damo has no idea what he is talking about so best to ignore him on these matters.
Click to expand...

lol....and yet its you that demonstrates he has no idea what he's talking about......interesting, isn't it.....
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
I didn't mean to suggest that they don't matter at all, though I kinda did say that. I just meant that they don't have the force of law and aren't as important as appropriations bills (note budgets are resolutions, not bills) .

By the way, Damo has no idea what he is talking about so best to ignore him on these matters.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I should have said by law... not the Constitution...

Anyway, the budgets as we know them didn't start until 1921.

The Congress passed a law requiring the Executive to centralize the requests from the agencies.

The Federal Budget Cycle is governed mainly by these six laws:

1 Budget and Accounting Act.
2 Congressional Budget Act.
3 Antideficiency Act.
4 Impoundment Control Act.
5 Government Performance and Results Act.
6 Federal Credit Reform Act.

Before the first of these (passed as explained before in 1921) there was no centralized budgeting. Each of the agencies would request allocations which went before various Congressional Committees. That law centralized the functions and required the Senate to pass a budget each year setting expenditures.

Secondary Appropriations are for stuff that is not included on that budget even if Dung thinks I don't know what I am talking about.

Some problems I have with the way we do things is we have a bunch of stuff that automatically grows each year set on a baseline. This is called baseline budgeting, IMO each of the agencies should be required to request allocation of funds in the budget. I do like the centralization I simply dislike the accounting method. As well as the fact that we cannot seem to get our act together and get a balanced budget amendment passed, twice we missed by one vote...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top