prediction

[wmw999 2,167]

Quote

One thing that bothers me is hearing there has to be compromise or we need to work together
Sorry, that is bs. This system was put into place to be contentious. the less laws passed the better off we are as a people

What if it takes compromise to figure out an agency that can be downsized or eliminated? Or is it more important to maintain the antagonism and preening power than to actually do something like that?

Personally, I think one of the first things to go should be corporate subsidies to companies that advertise. Or at least the corporate subsidies should be reduced by the corporate advertising budget. And for industries that have advertising organizations (like farming), then whatever amount they provide to the advertising organization.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 18]

SkyDekker

But in order for a budget to pass (which framework is governed by budget laws) requires parties to work together. You don't want parties to work together, so how would you get a budget passed?

Or you only want to parties to work together on passing a budget, but nothing else?

Quote

And yes, they are doing what I want
I bring this up becasue to those on the left who love to call the republicans the party of no. when it was really the Dems who were just that

Ahh ok, so you don't care if it actually helps the US or not, you are concerned about the reputation of your favourite party. Got it.

that is one hell of a jump there son

What has been happening to this country for the last 10 years has NOT helped it (notice this includes Bush)

You also need to notice that the Dems have not even tried to produce a budget in the Senate for years (which is a duty of that body) Dems controled that
They only wanted continuing resolutions so as to disguise what the gov was spending
Now, the republicans tried to stop this but what happened , the dems did not want to do it, so they pushed for yet another continuing resolution and then were able to BLAME the republicans with the gov shut down (which really did not mean much except for the shit Obama pulled with parks and stuff) And with withe the Obama media supporting them, the Dems make this bs about the shut down a big deal and hung it around the neck of the republicans

your assumptions are hilarious
Keep them up
Just adds to the please of this post election day for me

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,150]

rushmc

***But in order for a budget to pass (which framework is governed by budget laws) requires parties to work together. You don't want parties to work together, so how would you get a budget passed?

Or you only want to parties to work together on passing a budget, but nothing else?

Quote

And yes, they are doing what I want
I bring this up becasue to those on the left who love to call the republicans the party of no. when it was really the Dems who were just that

Ahh ok, so you don't care if it actually helps the US or not, you are concerned about the reputation of your favourite party. Got it.

that is one hell of a jump there son

What has been happening to this country for the last 10 years has NOT helped it (notice this includes Bush)

You also need to notice that the Dems have not even tried to produce a budget in the Senate for years (which is a duty of that body) Dems controled that
They only wanted continuing resolutions so as to disguise what the gov was spending
Now, the republicans tried to stop this but what happened , the dems did not want to do it, so they pushed for yet another continuing resolution and then were able to BLAME the republicans with the gov shut down (which really did not mean much except to the shit Obama pulled with parks and stuff) And with withe the Obama media supporting them, the Dems make this bs about the shut down a big deal and hung it around the neck of the republicans

your assumptions are hilarious
Keep them up
Just adds to the please of this post election day for me

You aren't answering any of the questions, just going off on a different tangent as usual.

If parties are not to work together, how is a budget supposed to get passed?

As a follow up: Do you agree with the laws that govern the budget process? Or would you have preferred those laws never got passed either?

[rushmc 18]

SkyDekker

******But in order for a budget to pass (which framework is governed by budget laws) requires parties to work together. You don't want parties to work together, so how would you get a budget passed?

Or you only want to parties to work together on passing a budget, but nothing else?

Quote

And yes, they are doing what I want
I bring this up becasue to those on the left who love to call the republicans the party of no. when it was really the Dems who were just that

Ahh ok, so you don't care if it actually helps the US or not, you are concerned about the reputation of your favourite party. Got it.

that is one hell of a jump there son

What has been happening to this country for the last 10 years has NOT helped it (notice this includes Bush)

You also need to notice that the Dems have not even tried to produce a budget in the Senate for years (which is a duty of that body) Dems controled that
They only wanted continuing resolutions so as to disguise what the gov was spending
Now, the republicans tried to stop this but what happened , the dems did not want to do it, so they pushed for yet another continuing resolution and then were able to BLAME the republicans with the gov shut down (which really did not mean much except to the shit Obama pulled with parks and stuff) And with withe the Obama media supporting them, the Dems make this bs about the shut down a big deal and hung it around the neck of the republicans

your assumptions are hilarious
Keep them up
Just adds to the please of this post election day for me

You aren't answering any of the questions, just going off on a different tangent as usual.

If parties are not to work together, how is a budget supposed to get passed?

the lead party does it
They have the power of the purse
I hope the republicans WILL provide a budget
if the dems want to filibuster it maybe they will get blamed for a government shut down

One thing is for sure
Once the budget process starts, we will again here the normal bs we have heard before
The republicans want to starve children and the poor
they will enslave blacks
and throw grandma out of her house
they will destroy social security
blah blah blah

BTW
I answered your question
Sorry you missed that
and you also ingnored points around your question
and you say I go off on a tangent
priceless

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Quote

the lead party does it
They have the power of the purse
I hope the republicans WILL provide a budget
if the dems want to filibuster it maybe they will get blamed for a government shut down

Uhm, the President submits the budget, not the lead party.

Quote

I answered your question

That may be part of the problem here. I actually posed question(s).

I'll add another one for you. A lot of funding comes from Appropriation Bills, which are actual laws. Should these laws get passed, or would the US be better off if those laws did not get passed either?

[rushmc 18]

SkyDekker

Quote

the lead party does it
They have the power of the purse
I hope the republicans WILL provide a budget
if the dems want to filibuster it maybe they will get blamed for a government shut down

Uhm, the President submits the budget, not the lead party.

***I answered your question

That may be part of the problem here. I actually posed question(s).

I'll add another one for you. A lot of funding comes from Appropriation Bills, which are actual laws. Should these laws get passed, or would the US be better off if those laws did not get passed either?

The president does submit a budget as obama did a couple of times

Here is a sumary of how it is supposed to work
But, ultimatley, the House and Senate control the money
that is the power given thme to keep a president in check
the Dems had NOT provided a budget more than twice that I can remember

Quote

Step 1: The President Submits a Budget Request

The president sends a budget request to Congress each February for the coming fiscal year, which begins on Oct. 1.5 For example, President Obama submitted his budget request for fiscal year 2013 in February of 2012. Fiscal year 2013 began on Oct. 1, 2012, and ended on Sept. 30, 2013.

The president’s budget request is just a proposal. Congress then reviews the request and passes its own appropriations bills; only after the president signs these bills does the country have a budget for the new fiscal year.6

Step 2: The House and Senate Pass Budget Resolutions

Once the president’s budget request has been released, Congress begins the months-long process of reviewing the request. After the president submits the budget request and lawmakers have thoroughly reviewed it, the House Committee on the Budget and the Senate Committee on the Budget each writes a budget resolution.7 A budget resolution is not a binding document, but is more like a blueprint. It provides a framework for Congress for making budget decisions about spending and taxes. It sets overall annual spending limits for federal agencies, but does not set specific spending amounts for particular programs. After the two chambers pass their budget resolutions, a joint conference is formed to iron out differences between the two and a reconciled version is then voted on by each chamber.

Step 3: House and Senate Subcommittees “Markup” Appropriation Bills

The Appropriations Committees in both the House and the Senate are responsible for determining the precise levels of budget authority for all discretionary programs.8 The Appropriations Committees in both the House and Senate are broken down into smaller Appropriations subcommittees, which review the president’s budget request pertaining to the federal agencies under their specific jurisdictions. (Subcommittees cover different areas of the federal government; for example, there is a subcommittee for defense spending, and another one for energy and water.) After each subcommittee reviews the president’s request, it conducts hearings and poses questions to leaders of its associated federal agencies about each agency’s requested budget.9

Based on all of this information, the chair of each subcommittee writes a first draft of the subcommittee’s appropriations bill, abiding by the spending limits set out in the budget resolution. All subcommittee members then consider, amend, and finally vote on the bill. Once it has passed the subcommittee, the bill goes to the full Appropriations Committee. The full committee reviews it, and then sends it to the full House or Senate for consideration.

Step 4: The House and Senate Vote on Appropriations Bills and Reconcile Differences

The full House and Senate then debate and vote on appropriations bills from each of the 12 subcommittees. After both the House and Senate pass their versions of each appropriations bill, a conference committee meets to resolve differences between the House and Senate versions. After the conference committee produces a reconciled version of the bill, the House and Senate vote again, but this time on a bill that is identical in both chambers. After passing both the House and Senate, each appropriations bill goes to the president.10

Step 5: The President Signs Each Appropriations Bill and the Budget Becomes Law

The president must sign each appropriations bill after it has passed Congress for the bill to become law. When the president has signed all 12 appropriations bills, the budget process is complete. Rarely, however, is work finished on all 12 bills by Oct. 1, the start of the new fiscal year.

I think I have answered your questions

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,167]

I see a lot of compromise required in there. Especially since, without a line-item veto, the President has to either sign or not sign whatever is given to him. Therefore it's in the political interest of whatever house is controlled by his party to try to make it one that he can reasonably sign, and it's in the political interest of whatever house doesn't control the party (especially if it's both of them) to stick it to him and make him look like an ass.

It's obviously in no one's political interest to actually get a budget passed so that the gummint can plan and execute. Without hostages, there isn't as much publicity.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Quote

I think I have answered your questions

No, because you haven't shows how this reasonably can be completed without the parties working together? This started with you saying that you don't think the parties should work together and how the US is better off without laws getting passed.

You also haven't touched on appropriation bills, which are laws that have to get passed to free up funding for Defence and Veteran Affairs as an example.

[kallend 1,673]

rushmc

***[Reply]I expect to see an attempt to repeal Obamacare on the President's desk fairly soon.

Noit gonna happen. Not until the courts work it out.

The GOP will eliminate Reid's filibuster rule. But they won't be smart enough to eliminate the dual track filibuster rule. The GOP would be wise to make threat of filibuster painful. It will actually force both sides to actually work together.

Want to filibuster a bill before the Senate? Then everything else stops. Everything. That's how it used to be. Filibuster was a very big political risk. Not any more. Hence, the threat is enough and there is no consequence.

[lawrocket 3]

quade

***

Quote

ALL corporate welfare programs and restructure tax breaks

Tax breaks for certain behaviour are corporate welfare programs.

No. GIVING money to companies for doing nothing is corporate welfare and there's quite a bit of it.

I think once we start treating corporations like people and stop paying either to do nothing then we'll be in some better shape. On the other hand, I think it would also be beneficial to cut down on the taking money from people and corporations when they do something.

Take a look at Simpson-Bowles. Just kinda give their recommendations a shot and see how it works out. That kind of thing.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[JerryBaumchen 1,077]

Hi rocket,

Quote

Take a look at Simpson-Bowles.

There were a few things in it that I did not care for. Overall, I think ( if we took it in it's totality ) we would be on a better track.

What is interesting to me is that both parties said that it was DOA without ever having read it.

Jerry Baumchen

[lawrocket 3]

JerryBaumchen

Hi rocket,

Quote

Take a look at Simpson-Bowles.

There were a few things in it that I did not care for. Overall, I think ( if we took it in it's totality ) we would be on a better track.

What is interesting to me is that both parties said that it was DOA without ever having read it.

Jerry Baumchen

There's plenty for everyone to hate. Which is actually what is necessary. It's the reason why it was DOA. Every politician loses. Country as a whole wins.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[champu 1]

SkyDekker

You also haven't touched on appropriation bills, which are laws that have to get passed to free up funding for Defence and Veteran Affairs as an example.

???

The sum total of the appropriation bills passed by the houses and signed by the president is the budget. They are not a distinct thing.

[SkyDekker 1,150]

champu

***You also haven't touched on appropriation bills, which are laws that have to get passed to free up funding for Defence and Veteran Affairs as an example.

???

The sum total of the appropriation bills passed by the houses and signed by the president is the budget. They are not a distinct thing.

No, some of them are part of the budget. Most budgets also have a revenue component.

Supplemental Appropriation Bills are not part of the original budget.

Regardless of the semantics, rushmc says the US would be better off if laws do not get passed. I am still waiting to hear how the US is supposed to function that way.

[kallend 1,673]

SkyDekker

******You also haven't touched on appropriation bills, which are laws that have to get passed to free up funding for Defence and Veteran Affairs as an example.

???

The sum total of the appropriation bills passed by the houses and signed by the president is the budget. They are not a distinct thing.

No, some of them are part of the budget. Most budgets also have a revenue component.

Supplemental Appropriation Bills are not part of the original budget.



Same word is being used for two different things. Leads to arguments.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,673]

SkyDekker

rushmc says the US would be better off if laws do not get passed. I am still waiting to hear how the US is supposed to function that way.

Don't hold your breath.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[champu 1]

I don't disagree with the general point you're trying to make about parties needing to work together and needing to pass laws for the government to function, and I've lamented it myself in the past, but you are treating the president's budget request as "the budget" when the operative word is really "the request."