Boehner cant deliver on his promise from last night.
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Are you disagreeing with your buddy Jarhead ? I quote.
"He is not a member of Congress. He does not propose laws, he signs them or vetos them. Check the Constitution." (He, meaning the president)
Jarhead says the President does not propose laws, (in this case, he means the budget, because thats what we're talking about)
implying the President is just following the lead of those that do propose the budget.....Congress....In Clintons case, a Republican congress under Gingrich....
So sorry, onecell, thats just the way it turned out........is this getting to complicated for you ? I know about your reading ability and that you must have everything explained to you....ergo,
it isn't my assessment at all, it was Jarheads .......Congress is responsible for the budget...I just applied it to Clinton balancing act.....
So you acknoledge that deficit spending is sometimes necessary... Then what is your position on a Ballanced Budget Amendment?
I am saying its not the duty of presidents to produce legislation.
I agree that deficit spending is not necessary at all times and not commendable at all times. I would say it was necessary over the past three years and that going forward, as the economy improves, it will be less and less necessary in the comming three years.
I also belive that the Republicans mostly know it has been necessary for the last three years but are turning a blind eye to that fact in an effort to gain political points against the President.
Yo, it has provisions for that in the proposed Amendments.
I should not have said "propose", although that is not his constitutional duty. The president does not produce leglslation, thats up to the legislative branch.
THat depends on what proposed amendment you are talking about and how it is limited. I belive it is impossable to have enough teeth to do any good and still be flexable to allow for all of the times when deficite spending is necessary.
I think you are being partisanly protective. The republicans understand that it would take a few years to even get the Amendment ratified and every proposal form them has shown they understand that cuts cannot be instantaneous and only pretensive partisans are "incapable" of paying attention to reality in lieu of simply reading talking points and believing them.
I also understand that the only sure way of showing Standard and Poors that we are absolutely going to pay our debt and thus save our credit rating is to pass an amendment that restricts the government from creating only unending debt without paying any principal as we have done over the past 50 YEARS...
Its possable to lead without proposing legislation.
Its not his constitutional duty to travel on AF 1, 6 times a week and appear on tv 20 times a week either....just what the hell is your point ?
Proposing legislation IS leading....proposing budgets IS leading .....proposing law IS leading ...as ALL presidents before him have done since George Washington...
It isn't possible to create a compromise without anything offered from one side as he demands that one side do in this case.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
first its republicans walk in lockstep, then its they can't agree and it is because of a lack of leadership
I am not saying that the Republicans are suggesting that a BBA would immideatly solve the budget problem. I am saying that the Republicans are attacking the President for spending that they themselves know was necessary to get us out of the mess we are now only very slowly inching out of.
What S&P has said is that not increasing the debt sealing will lead to a lowered rating, that is the solution many TEA party activists are promoting. We need to cut the deficite and to get anything meaningfull we must both cut spending and modistly increase revnue by taking it from large corporations who pay nothing and the richest Americans who pay less than they have in 5 decades.
The senate is working on a bill as we speak, the negotiations have included plans that I have read. You know you are being disengenous. How could they have had all of these negotiations without a framework? Even Bohener said that they had a working plan that fell apart when the president demanded more revenue. (That was a lie, it fell apart when the TEA partiers said they would not support it and would strip Bohner from his speakership if he continued.)
No, promising legislation on national television, in responce to the presidental address, then not delilvering on it is a lack of leadership.
Again, you are reading only the talking points and believing them rather than looking at the reality around you. Not one of the proposals (including cut, cap, and balance) has suggested cuts that would immediately bring us into balance. This reality shows that the republicans understand that cuts like that would be detrimental. That is real. Now, the rhetoric from both sides simply tells us that both sides understand that there are people like you, those who will never look beyond (unless shamed into it after somebody hits you in the back of the head by the reality) their talking points and will continue to shuffle it onto the eyes of people who should be more aware than this.
After years on political websites the one thing that surprises me is the incapacity of posters to ever simply look at what was done, think through it, then talk about it. It has always been and always will be mostly talking points.
They are attacking him for useless spending as his policy and spending has been almost entirely ineffective and has never stood up to the expectations set by the President himself. He's had a blank check, and it is time to take that away.
I still remember when 6% unemployment was the "worst jobs economy since the Great Depression!" I wish we could return to those days.