Worst President in U.S. History

[AmericanGirl05]

If you go back several pages, I explained the entire budgetary process in detail.

Let me point out that submission of the President's budget does not mean it will be passed into law.

Just ask Reagan.

Yet the Congress gave Dubya a budget he NEVER signed. Go figure, my original posit stands!

Dishonest POS conservatives!


PLEASE tell me more about Ronnie not getting the budgets he wanted, since Congress spent LESS than what he wanted AND his budgets were NOTHING like reality to begin with, thinking growth (and receipts) would be much higher! lol

Come on Bubba, DARE YOU!

I'm ready to crash your stupid ass with FACT BASED DATA!!!!!

No, Congress did not give him a budget he never signed.

Posting to you is just stupid. You do not understand the process in the slightest and you keep posting things that are just not accurate.

February 4, 2008

Bush Seeks Budget of $3.1 Trillion

Mr. Bush said he would cut or terminate 151 programs, saving $18 billion in 2009. One agency, the Education Department, accounts for 47 of the terminated programs and three of the programs to be cut. But he would increase spending in areas that fall under the umbrella of “national security.”

Mr. Bush’s proposed budget, the first in the nation’s history to exceed $3 trillion, foresees near-record deficits just ahead — $410 billion in the current fiscal year, on spending of $2.9 trillion, and $407 billion for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 — before the budget would come into balance in 2012.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/washington/04cnd-budget.html?_r=0



Total expenditures $3.107 trillion (estimated)
$3.518 trillion (actual)
Budget FY 2011 - Summary Tables


NAH, DUBYA SHOULDN'T OWN MOST OF THE BUDGET RIGHT?? lol

It wasn't enacted. Go away till you understand the process.

So in your world, that means the final F/Y budget, which was finally put in place, wasn't the responsibility like EVERY other US Prez in his final year?? Even though spending was just about the same, yet revenues plummeted and the extra $200 billion CAN be put on Obama's shoulders? Honesty. Try it!

Yes, that's right. He didn't sign; Obama did. Provisions in it were not what W would have proposed.

Now may we move on?

 

[Dad2three]

While a filibuster is prohibited for budget bills, the senate also has a rule that for it to actually go into effect or be enacted it must have cooperation from the House in a resolution passed by the house. OR at least 60 votes in the Senate.
Parliamentary procedure: Why the Senate hasn't passed a budget | The Economist

From the article:

It's true that you cannot filibuster a budget resolution in the Senate, because the Budget Act provides special rules for consideration of a budget resolution, including a time limit on debate. So the Senate can pass a resolution with only a majority vote. However, the resolution does not take effect when the Senate passes it. It takes effect in one of two ways: if the House and Senate pass an identical resolution, usually in the form of a conference report; or if the Senate passes a separate Senate Resolution (as opposed to a concurrent resolution, which is what a budget resolution is) that says the House is “deemed” to have agreed to the budget resolution passed by the Senate.

But there are no special procedures for the simple Senate Resolution required by this second, “deeming” process, so it is subject to the unlimited debate allowed on almost everything in the Senate. If you do not have the support of 60 Senators to invoke cloture and end a filibuster, or prevent a filibuster from even starting (because everyone knows 60 Senators support cloture), you cannot pass such a deeming resolution in the Senate.

Because its rules are different, the House with a simple majority can pass a resolution deeming that the House and Senate have agreed to the House resolution so that it can take effect. This means the allocations in the resolution, such as for appropriations, are in effect in the House and anybody can raise a point-of-order against legislation that would cause a committee to exceed its allocation.

But this is for purposes of enforcement in the House only. What the House does has no effect whatsoever on the Senate or its budget enforcement. And vice versa, if the Senate deems that its budget resolution has been agreed to.
With the exception of reconciliation legislation, it effectively takes 60 votes to consider any legislation in the Senate so it really does not matter whether the resolution has been adopted; if you have 60, you can consider the legislation, if you don't, you can't.

The bottom line is the budget process set out in the Budget Act works pretty well when the Congress can agree on budget policies. When they cannot, no process in the world can make things work smoothly, but Congress muddles through and does what absolutely has to be done (like keeping the government from shutting down or defaulting on the debt). Not having a budget resolution in place is a symptom of the inability to reach agreement – not the cause of Congress not being able to accomplish things.


Correcting the mess the bush boy and gop left behind can't be done in just a budget. It will and did take separate legislation to reverse the damage. For example:

Nancy Pelosi passed a bill that removed the tax benefits of moving a business out of America. It imposed penalties for those who did it and it gave tax rewards to those who brought business back to America. When it got to the Senate the republicans promptly filibustered it and killed it.

Pelosi also passed a bill that would remove a lot the subsidies and tax loopholes that big oil companies receive. When it got to the Senate the republicans filibustered it and killed it.

I can go on and on with good legislation that was passed in the House only to be filibustered and killed in the Senate by the republicans.

Thank you for your link on the budget resolution process.

You make, however, a very common error in confusing the budget resolution, which is really only a guideline for Congressional committee action, with actual appropriations legislation, which is binding on the entire nation.

Go back and understand the difference and then perhaps we can talk.

The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request submitted by President George W. Bush to the 110th Congress. The final resolution written and submitted by the 110th Congress to be forwarded to the President was approved by the House on June 5, 2008

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll382.xml


On February 4, 2008, President George W. Bush submitted (as is customary for a president to do so) a budget request to the U.S. Congress for fiscal year (FY) 2009. It would amount to $3.1 trillion in federal spending, and trim spending on several domestic programs while eliminating others. In addition, his proposal would make permanent the tax cuts passed during his first term and increase defense spending by 5 percent
FY 2009 U.S. federal budget - OpenCongress Wiki



WANT TO TRY AGAIN BUBBA??

First of all, I'm no Bubba. Tends to be a term applied to men.

Secondly, you do not understand the budgetary and appropriations process. As someone whose career was doing that, I find posting the same basic information over and over to you tedious because you are ignorant and not learning.

You mean your a Bubbette who isn't honest? I'm shocked. Basic info is DUBYA, LIKE EVERY OTHER US PREZ IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS FINAL F/Y BUDGET THAT STARTS 4 MONTHS BEFORE HE LEFT OFFICE. To claim otherwise is BS!!!

Please tell me about this spending inferno Obama created if not??? lol

No, he is not. He did not sign the final appropriations bill and the final approps that passed had proposals in them (i.e., Porkulus) he most definitely would not have signed.

Nah, Dubya ONLY signed the first stimulus right? (Jan 2008 , $152 billion, lol) BUT the link I gave you SHOWED 2009 F/Y stimulus was less than $115 billion in 2009

Obama s Spending Inferno or Not

Yeah, like the GOP who 85% who signed onto Dubya's stimulus, the GOP was keen to help US when a Dem cam,e into office (not even backing Dubya's $700 BILLION TARP BAILOUT!!!)




FLASHBACK: 85 Percent Of House Republicans Who Were Serving In ‘08 Voted For Bush’s Stimulus Act

 

[Dad2three]

You gave NO justifications for ANYTHING (most because you couldn't.)

BUT LETS GET ONTO RONNIE PLEASE? I'M READY

You didn't ask for any.

Every year Ronnie proposed deep cuts to domestic spending, including abolishing some programs (I happened to work for one of those at the time). Congress put them back in, every year.

Goood for you Bubba

Reagan's proposals were based on such optimistic forecasts of the economy that they bore little resemblance to reality.

To understand how the ruse works, a brief review of the budget process is helpful. A budget passed by Congress is not written in stone; there are actually many flexible items in it. One example is unemployment. The budget says, "Pay each unemployed person XXXX amount in unemployment compensation." If the unemployment rate rises higher next year than anticipated, the budget automatically pays these extra individuals without requiring Congressional action.

Another example of a flexible budget item is interest on the debt. If interest rates soar or receipts drop more than expected, then interests costs are going to be greater. These are paid without Congressional action (unless the debt limit is reached).

In the president's budget proposals, he must estimate next year's unemployment rate, interest rates, and several other economic indicators. We have already seen that in Reagan's first budget, David Stockman came up with a super-optimistic forecast that predicted 5 percent economic growth. (The higher the growth, the less government has to spend on unemployment, welfare, stimulus packages, etc.) Today, Stockman derisively refers to his first budget as the "Rosy Scenario." Although Reagan's remaining budgets were not quite as far-fetched as the Rosy Scenario, they were indeed much too optimistic. In fact, the only reason why spending surpassed the requests in only 7 instead of all 8 years was because one year -- 1984 -- actually saw a phenomenal spike of 6 percent growth.

What supply-siders are doing with the above chart, then, is comparing what was spent in the real world with what Reagan proposed in 8 Rosy Scenarios. They then blame the difference on Congressional action -- despite the fact that Congress didn't act on these increases.

The ruse is akin to a President proposing to spend one dollar on the budget next year, and blaming Congress for (inevitably) exceeding this proposal. Even if it turns out that Congress cuts the real budget, and the economy does better than normal!

As reported on the previous page, the House Appropriations Committee conducted a study that compared Reagan's concrete proposals to what Congress actually passed, not what was spent afterwards. And it found that Reagan asked for $29.4 billion more than Congress passed.

Reagan s Budget Proposals


NEXT TALKING POINT? TELL ME ABOUT THE DEMS NOT HOLDING UP THEIR SIDE OF NONIE'S BARGAIN? PLEASE?

You still don't get it, do you?

That Congress gave Ronnie less money than he asked for? Sure. Do you?

They didn't.

The House Appropriations Committee conducted a study that compared Reagan's concrete proposals to what Congress actually passed, not what was spent afterwards. And it found that Reagan asked for $29.4 billion more than Congress passed.

Reagan s Budget Proposals

 

[AmericanGirl05]

Thank you for your link on the budget resolution process.

You make, however, a very common error in confusing the budget resolution, which is really only a guideline for Congressional committee action, with actual appropriations legislation, which is binding on the entire nation.

Go back and understand the difference and then perhaps we can talk.

The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request submitted by President George W. Bush to the 110th Congress. The final resolution written and submitted by the 110th Congress to be forwarded to the President was approved by the House on June 5, 2008

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll382.xml


On February 4, 2008, President George W. Bush submitted (as is customary for a president to do so) a budget request to the U.S. Congress for fiscal year (FY) 2009. It would amount to $3.1 trillion in federal spending, and trim spending on several domestic programs while eliminating others. In addition, his proposal would make permanent the tax cuts passed during his first term and increase defense spending by 5 percent
FY 2009 U.S. federal budget - OpenCongress Wiki



WANT TO TRY AGAIN BUBBA??

First of all, I'm no Bubba. Tends to be a term applied to men.

Secondly, you do not understand the budgetary and appropriations process. As someone whose career was doing that, I find posting the same basic information over and over to you tedious because you are ignorant and not learning.

You mean your a Bubbette who isn't honest? I'm shocked. Basic info is DUBYA, LIKE EVERY OTHER US PREZ IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS FINAL F/Y BUDGET THAT STARTS 4 MONTHS BEFORE HE LEFT OFFICE. To claim otherwise is BS!!!

Please tell me about this spending inferno Obama created if not??? lol

No, he is not. He did not sign the final appropriations bill and the final approps that passed had proposals in them (i.e., Porkulus) he most definitely would not have signed.

Nah, Dubya ONLY signed the first stimulus right? (Jan 2008 , $152 billion, lol) BUT the link I gave you SHOWED 2009 F/Y stimulus was less than $115 billion in 2009

Obama s Spending Inferno or Not

Yeah, like the GOP who 85% who signed onto Dubya's stimulus, the GOP was keen to help US when a Dem cam,e into office (not even backing Dubya's $700 BILLION TARP BAILOUT!!!)




FLASHBACK: 85 Percent Of House Republicans Who Were Serving In ‘08 Voted For Bush’s Stimulus Act

He signed the bailout. Which was all paid back.

He did not sign Porkulus or any full year appropriation.

 

[Dana7360]

You can say it until you're blue in the face and pass out. Obama will not be responsible for the whole fiscal year. Hell, he wasn't even president for nearly 1/3rd of FY2009.

Your sycophancy is too funny.

So... I pass a bad policy. It's my policy right? And the policy causes tons and tons of debt. It's all my fault.

So far.... I'm with you. I agree with that logic. Bush did bad, bad cost money, thus debt is Bush's fault.

We all agree.

Here's the problem sparky............ The MOMENT that Obama got into office, he COULD HAVE cut those bad policies, and repealed the bad plan, cut the spending, and taken a new course of action.

If Obama had done that, I would right here, right now, be supporting Obama on that.

Is that what Obama did? No. It is not. Not only did Obama not repeal the bad Bush policies... he extended them, and expanded them. He inherited a bad Federal Deficit, and made it 5 times worse.

Now whether you agree with this or not, the fact is, the moment Obama continued Bush policies, and expanded Bush policies, and increased Bush policies.... the moment he did that.... HE OWNS IT.

Whether you like it or not, that's the fact.

Obama and the democrats did try to correct the bad policy that the bush boy and republicans forced on our nation.

Pelosi got a lot of it passed through the House. However when it got to the Senate the republicans filibustered it. Just as they filibustered almost every piece of legislation that was passed out of the House.

Now before you start in on super majorities being able to break that republican filibuster, the democrats never had 60 people in their seats to vote.

If you're honest you will remember that Al Franken wasn't sworn in until SEVEN months after everyone else. He was sworn in to the Senate in July 2009. By that time senators Byrd and Kennedy were dying. They weren't actually in their seats to vote. They were in the hospital mostly on their death beds. When Kennedy died Massachusetts elected a republican for his seat.

So there never was a 60 seat majority for the democrats to break the gop filibuster and pass the legislation to correct all the bad policy the bush boy enacted and left behind.

The republicans want that policy to stay in place and we've been suffering from it all this time. It won't stop until democrats have control of the house and a filibuster proof majority in the senate. Which I don't see happening anytime soon. The gop has gerrymandered the seats in the House so much that it will be nearly impossible to break that majority.

You do know that Senate rules prohibit filibusters on budget bills, right?

While a filibuster is prohibited for budget bills, the senate also has a rule that for it to actually go into effect or be enacted it must have cooperation from the House in a resolution passed by the house. OR at least 60 votes in the Senate.
Parliamentary procedure: Why the Senate hasn't passed a budget | The Economist

From the article:

It's true that you cannot filibuster a budget resolution in the Senate, because the Budget Act provides special rules for consideration of a budget resolution, including a time limit on debate. So the Senate can pass a resolution with only a majority vote. However, the resolution does not take effect when the Senate passes it. It takes effect in one of two ways: if the House and Senate pass an identical resolution, usually in the form of a conference report; or if the Senate passes a separate Senate Resolution (as opposed to a concurrent resolution, which is what a budget resolution is) that says the House is “deemed” to have agreed to the budget resolution passed by the Senate.

But there are no special procedures for the simple Senate Resolution required by this second, “deeming” process, so it is subject to the unlimited debate allowed on almost everything in the Senate. If you do not have the support of 60 Senators to invoke cloture and end a filibuster, or prevent a filibuster from even starting (because everyone knows 60 Senators support cloture), you cannot pass such a deeming resolution in the Senate.

Because its rules are different, the House with a simple majority can pass a resolution deeming that the House and Senate have agreed to the House resolution so that it can take effect. This means the allocations in the resolution, such as for appropriations, are in effect in the House and anybody can raise a point-of-order against legislation that would cause a committee to exceed its allocation.

But this is for purposes of enforcement in the House only. What the House does has no effect whatsoever on the Senate or its budget enforcement. And vice versa, if the Senate deems that its budget resolution has been agreed to.
With the exception of reconciliation legislation, it effectively takes 60 votes to consider any legislation in the Senate so it really does not matter whether the resolution has been adopted; if you have 60, you can consider the legislation, if you don't, you can't.

The bottom line is the budget process set out in the Budget Act works pretty well when the Congress can agree on budget policies. When they cannot, no process in the world can make things work smoothly, but Congress muddles through and does what absolutely has to be done (like keeping the government from shutting down or defaulting on the debt). Not having a budget resolution in place is a symptom of the inability to reach agreement – not the cause of Congress not being able to accomplish things.


Correcting the mess the bush boy and gop left behind can't be done in just a budget. It will and did take separate legislation to reverse the damage. For example:

Nancy Pelosi passed a bill that removed the tax benefits of moving a business out of America. It imposed penalties for those who did it and it gave tax rewards to those who brought business back to America. When it got to the Senate the republicans promptly filibustered it and killed it.

Pelosi also passed a bill that would remove a lot the subsidies and tax loopholes that big oil companies receive. When it got to the Senate the republicans filibustered it and killed it.

I can go on and on with good legislation that was passed in the House only to be filibustered and killed in the Senate by the republicans.

Thank you for your link on the budget resolution process.

You make, however, a very common error in confusing the budget resolution, which is really only a guideline for Congressional committee action, with actual appropriations legislation, which is binding on the entire nation.

Go back and understand the difference and then perhaps we can talk.

That specific article was about budget resolutions.

The same rules apply to the budget.

It has to have the house approve it or 60 votes in the senate to actually implement or enact it.

 

[AmericanGirl05]

You didn't ask for any.

Every year Ronnie proposed deep cuts to domestic spending, including abolishing some programs (I happened to work for one of those at the time). Congress put them back in, every year.

Goood for you Bubba

Reagan's proposals were based on such optimistic forecasts of the economy that they bore little resemblance to reality.

To understand how the ruse works, a brief review of the budget process is helpful. A budget passed by Congress is not written in stone; there are actually many flexible items in it. One example is unemployment. The budget says, "Pay each unemployed person XXXX amount in unemployment compensation." If the unemployment rate rises higher next year than anticipated, the budget automatically pays these extra individuals without requiring Congressional action.

Another example of a flexible budget item is interest on the debt. If interest rates soar or receipts drop more than expected, then interests costs are going to be greater. These are paid without Congressional action (unless the debt limit is reached).

In the president's budget proposals, he must estimate next year's unemployment rate, interest rates, and several other economic indicators. We have already seen that in Reagan's first budget, David Stockman came up with a super-optimistic forecast that predicted 5 percent economic growth. (The higher the growth, the less government has to spend on unemployment, welfare, stimulus packages, etc.) Today, Stockman derisively refers to his first budget as the "Rosy Scenario." Although Reagan's remaining budgets were not quite as far-fetched as the Rosy Scenario, they were indeed much too optimistic. In fact, the only reason why spending surpassed the requests in only 7 instead of all 8 years was because one year -- 1984 -- actually saw a phenomenal spike of 6 percent growth.

What supply-siders are doing with the above chart, then, is comparing what was spent in the real world with what Reagan proposed in 8 Rosy Scenarios. They then blame the difference on Congressional action -- despite the fact that Congress didn't act on these increases.

The ruse is akin to a President proposing to spend one dollar on the budget next year, and blaming Congress for (inevitably) exceeding this proposal. Even if it turns out that Congress cuts the real budget, and the economy does better than normal!

As reported on the previous page, the House Appropriations Committee conducted a study that compared Reagan's concrete proposals to what Congress actually passed, not what was spent afterwards. And it found that Reagan asked for $29.4 billion more than Congress passed.

Reagan s Budget Proposals


NEXT TALKING POINT? TELL ME ABOUT THE DEMS NOT HOLDING UP THEIR SIDE OF NONIE'S BARGAIN? PLEASE?

You still don't get it, do you?

That Congress gave Ronnie less money than he asked for? Sure. Do you?

They didn't.

The House Appropriations Committee conducted a study that compared Reagan's concrete proposals to what Congress actually passed, not what was spent afterwards. And it found that Reagan asked for $29.4 billion more than Congress passed.

Reagan s Budget Proposals

A link from huppi.com is not a credible source. I don't care where they say they got their information. If you have House Appropriations Committee analyses, then link directly from that source.

 

[Dad2three]

Yet the Congress gave Dubya a budget he NEVER signed. Go figure, my original posit stands!

Dishonest POS conservatives!


PLEASE tell me more about Ronnie not getting the budgets he wanted, since Congress spent LESS than what he wanted AND his budgets were NOTHING like reality to begin with, thinking growth (and receipts) would be much higher! lol

Come on Bubba, DARE YOU!

I'm ready to crash your stupid ass with FACT BASED DATA!!!!!

No, Congress did not give him a budget he never signed.

Posting to you is just stupid. You do not understand the process in the slightest and you keep posting things that are just not accurate.

February 4, 2008

Bush Seeks Budget of $3.1 Trillion

Mr. Bush said he would cut or terminate 151 programs, saving $18 billion in 2009. One agency, the Education Department, accounts for 47 of the terminated programs and three of the programs to be cut. But he would increase spending in areas that fall under the umbrella of “national security.”

Mr. Bush’s proposed budget, the first in the nation’s history to exceed $3 trillion, foresees near-record deficits just ahead — $410 billion in the current fiscal year, on spending of $2.9 trillion, and $407 billion for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 — before the budget would come into balance in 2012.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/washington/04cnd-budget.html?_r=0



Total expenditures $3.107 trillion (estimated)
$3.518 trillion (actual)
Budget FY 2011 - Summary Tables


NAH, DUBYA SHOULDN'T OWN MOST OF THE BUDGET RIGHT?? lol

It wasn't enacted. Go away till you understand the process.

So in your world, that means the final F/Y budget, which was finally put in place, wasn't the responsibility like EVERY other US Prez in his final year?? Even though spending was just about the same, yet revenues plummeted and the extra $200 billion CAN be put on Obama's shoulders? Honesty. Try it!

Yes, that's right. He didn't sign; Obama did. Provisions in it were not what W would have proposed.

Now may we move on?

You mean he would've demanded the tax cuts be kept permanently AND cost US another $4 trillion the next decade? Shocking

Yes, lets not give Dubya the final F/Y budget like EVERY pother US Prez has had, because his $3.1+ trillion budget wasn't the same as the ending $3.4 trillion budget *shaking head*

 

[Dana7360]

HOWEVER, the amount Obama signed could have been much less than the previous year. It was all up to him.

CRs provide a very limited allowance, and because of their restrictions, agencies are very frugal during CR times.

Also, by law, agencies may not undertake new policies or programs during a CR unless specifically authorized by Congress.

Obama owns the whole year.

You can say it until you're blue in the face and pass out. Obama will not be responsible for the whole fiscal year. Hell, he wasn't even president for nearly 1/3rd of FY2009.

Your sycophancy is too funny.

So... I pass a bad policy. It's my policy right? And the policy causes tons and tons of debt. It's all my fault.

So far.... I'm with you. I agree with that logic. Bush did bad, bad cost money, thus debt is Bush's fault.

We all agree.

Here's the problem sparky............ The MOMENT that Obama got into office, he COULD HAVE cut those bad policies, and repealed the bad plan, cut the spending, and taken a new course of action.

If Obama had done that, I would right here, right now, be supporting Obama on that.

Is that what Obama did? No. It is not. Not only did Obama not repeal the bad Bush policies... he extended them, and expanded them. He inherited a bad Federal Deficit, and made it 5 times worse.

Now whether you agree with this or not, the fact is, the moment Obama continued Bush policies, and expanded Bush policies, and increased Bush policies.... the moment he did that.... HE OWNS IT.

Whether you like it or not, that's the fact.

Obama and the democrats did try to correct the bad policy that the bush boy and republicans forced on our nation.

Pelosi got a lot of it passed through the House. However when it got to the Senate the republicans filibustered it. Just as they filibustered almost every piece of legislation that was passed out of the House.

Now before you start in on super majorities being able to break that republican filibuster, the democrats never had 60 people in their seats to vote.

If you're honest you will remember that Al Franken wasn't sworn in until SEVEN months after everyone else. He was sworn in to the Senate in July 2009. By that time senators Byrd and Kennedy were dying. They weren't actually in their seats to vote. They were in the hospital mostly on their death beds. When Kennedy died Massachusetts elected a republican for his seat.

So there never was a 60 seat majority for the democrats to break the gop filibuster and pass the legislation to correct all the bad policy the bush boy enacted and left behind.

The republicans want that policy to stay in place and we've been suffering from it all this time. It won't stop until democrats have control of the house and a filibuster proof majority in the senate. Which I don't see happening anytime soon. The gop has gerrymandered the seats in the House so much that it will be nearly impossible to break that majority.

You do know that Senate rules prohibit filibusters on budget bills, right?

Not having a budget caused the world wide economic collapse??? lol

The thing is that the economy collapsed in September 2008.

The fiscal budget for year 2009 started on October 1.

There was a budget for the fiscal year 2008 in place when the bush boy collapsed the economy.

 

[AmericanGirl05]

So... I pass a bad policy. It's my policy right? And the policy causes tons and tons of debt. It's all my fault.

So far.... I'm with you. I agree with that logic. Bush did bad, bad cost money, thus debt is Bush's fault.

We all agree.

Here's the problem sparky............ The MOMENT that Obama got into office, he COULD HAVE cut those bad policies, and repealed the bad plan, cut the spending, and taken a new course of action.

If Obama had done that, I would right here, right now, be supporting Obama on that.

Is that what Obama did? No. It is not. Not only did Obama not repeal the bad Bush policies... he extended them, and expanded them. He inherited a bad Federal Deficit, and made it 5 times worse.

Now whether you agree with this or not, the fact is, the moment Obama continued Bush policies, and expanded Bush policies, and increased Bush policies.... the moment he did that.... HE OWNS IT.

Whether you like it or not, that's the fact.

Obama and the democrats did try to correct the bad policy that the bush boy and republicans forced on our nation.

Pelosi got a lot of it passed through the House. However when it got to the Senate the republicans filibustered it. Just as they filibustered almost every piece of legislation that was passed out of the House.

Now before you start in on super majorities being able to break that republican filibuster, the democrats never had 60 people in their seats to vote.

If you're honest you will remember that Al Franken wasn't sworn in until SEVEN months after everyone else. He was sworn in to the Senate in July 2009. By that time senators Byrd and Kennedy were dying. They weren't actually in their seats to vote. They were in the hospital mostly on their death beds. When Kennedy died Massachusetts elected a republican for his seat.

So there never was a 60 seat majority for the democrats to break the gop filibuster and pass the legislation to correct all the bad policy the bush boy enacted and left behind.

The republicans want that policy to stay in place and we've been suffering from it all this time. It won't stop until democrats have control of the house and a filibuster proof majority in the senate. Which I don't see happening anytime soon. The gop has gerrymandered the seats in the House so much that it will be nearly impossible to break that majority.

You do know that Senate rules prohibit filibusters on budget bills, right?

While a filibuster is prohibited for budget bills, the senate also has a rule that for it to actually go into effect or be enacted it must have cooperation from the House in a resolution passed by the house. OR at least 60 votes in the Senate.
Parliamentary procedure: Why the Senate hasn't passed a budget | The Economist

From the article:

It's true that you cannot filibuster a budget resolution in the Senate, because the Budget Act provides special rules for consideration of a budget resolution, including a time limit on debate. So the Senate can pass a resolution with only a majority vote. However, the resolution does not take effect when the Senate passes it. It takes effect in one of two ways: if the House and Senate pass an identical resolution, usually in the form of a conference report; or if the Senate passes a separate Senate Resolution (as opposed to a concurrent resolution, which is what a budget resolution is) that says the House is “deemed” to have agreed to the budget resolution passed by the Senate.

But there are no special procedures for the simple Senate Resolution required by this second, “deeming” process, so it is subject to the unlimited debate allowed on almost everything in the Senate. If you do not have the support of 60 Senators to invoke cloture and end a filibuster, or prevent a filibuster from even starting (because everyone knows 60 Senators support cloture), you cannot pass such a deeming resolution in the Senate.

Because its rules are different, the House with a simple majority can pass a resolution deeming that the House and Senate have agreed to the House resolution so that it can take effect. This means the allocations in the resolution, such as for appropriations, are in effect in the House and anybody can raise a point-of-order against legislation that would cause a committee to exceed its allocation.

But this is for purposes of enforcement in the House only. What the House does has no effect whatsoever on the Senate or its budget enforcement. And vice versa, if the Senate deems that its budget resolution has been agreed to.
With the exception of reconciliation legislation, it effectively takes 60 votes to consider any legislation in the Senate so it really does not matter whether the resolution has been adopted; if you have 60, you can consider the legislation, if you don't, you can't.

The bottom line is the budget process set out in the Budget Act works pretty well when the Congress can agree on budget policies. When they cannot, no process in the world can make things work smoothly, but Congress muddles through and does what absolutely has to be done (like keeping the government from shutting down or defaulting on the debt). Not having a budget resolution in place is a symptom of the inability to reach agreement – not the cause of Congress not being able to accomplish things.


Correcting the mess the bush boy and gop left behind can't be done in just a budget. It will and did take separate legislation to reverse the damage. For example:

Nancy Pelosi passed a bill that removed the tax benefits of moving a business out of America. It imposed penalties for those who did it and it gave tax rewards to those who brought business back to America. When it got to the Senate the republicans promptly filibustered it and killed it.

Pelosi also passed a bill that would remove a lot the subsidies and tax loopholes that big oil companies receive. When it got to the Senate the republicans filibustered it and killed it.

I can go on and on with good legislation that was passed in the House only to be filibustered and killed in the Senate by the republicans.

Thank you for your link on the budget resolution process.

You make, however, a very common error in confusing the budget resolution, which is really only a guideline for Congressional committee action, with actual appropriations legislation, which is binding on the entire nation.

Go back and understand the difference and then perhaps we can talk.

That specific article was about budget resolutions.

The same rules apply to the budget.

It has to have the house approve it or 60 votes in the senate to actually implement or enact it.

No, a majority vote of both Houses AND a Presidential signature is all that is required for the 12 annual appropriations bills to pass.

You people are ignorant and you get all wrapped up with the budget resolution process, which is advisory. It is not law.

 

[Dad2three]

MORE nonsense. Shocking. A yearly balanced budget, surplus OR deficit is created through ALL spending in a given year, whether through normal yearly budgets OR off-budge, debt is ONLY a byproduct of it, NOTHING to do with whether income coming in versus go out are balanced or in deficit. Weird you don';t know that? Oh right the conservatives get most of their economic advice from guys who barely made it through high school, Rush, Hannity and Beck!

Then explain how Clinton increased the debt every year he supposedly ran a surplus.

REALLY? You don't understand the difference with debt versus YEARLY budgets? Hint, EXCESS payments came into Gov't that ws REQUIRED BY LAW to buy US bonds (created intra Gov't debt)!!!! You do know Reagan increased SS taxes by over $2.7+ trillion in 1983 to "save SS" right? The money that has been used to fund Gov't AND hide Ronnie/Dubya's TRUE costs of tax cuts for the rich!!!!

A yearly budget is ONLY money coming in versus going out, NOT Steiner BS premise that IF debt increases, you can't have a surplus!

Evidently you don't understand, see the portion of your previous post I put in bold. Evidently you're too ignorant to think for yourself, now go away BUBBA you're dismissed.

You moron, what's wrong with you? Can't use reason and logic?

"A yearly balanced budget, surplus OR deficit is created through ALL spending in a given year, whether through normal yearly budgets OR off-budge, debt is ONLY a byproduct of it"

...A yearly budget is ONLY money coming in versus going out,"

lol

What do you not understand about being dismissed, I have nothing to say to someone so ignorant they are unaware that they are contradicting themselves.

Didn't contradict myself Bubba, YOU are being willfully ignorant. Or not??

Your dodge noted however!

 

[AmericanGirl05]

No, Congress did not give him a budget he never signed.

Posting to you is just stupid. You do not understand the process in the slightest and you keep posting things that are just not accurate.

February 4, 2008

Bush Seeks Budget of $3.1 Trillion

Mr. Bush said he would cut or terminate 151 programs, saving $18 billion in 2009. One agency, the Education Department, accounts for 47 of the terminated programs and three of the programs to be cut. But he would increase spending in areas that fall under the umbrella of “national security.”

Mr. Bush’s proposed budget, the first in the nation’s history to exceed $3 trillion, foresees near-record deficits just ahead — $410 billion in the current fiscal year, on spending of $2.9 trillion, and $407 billion for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 — before the budget would come into balance in 2012.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/washington/04cnd-budget.html?_r=0



Total expenditures $3.107 trillion (estimated)
$3.518 trillion (actual)
Budget FY 2011 - Summary Tables


NAH, DUBYA SHOULDN'T OWN MOST OF THE BUDGET RIGHT?? lol

It wasn't enacted. Go away till you understand the process.

So in your world, that means the final F/Y budget, which was finally put in place, wasn't the responsibility like EVERY other US Prez in his final year?? Even though spending was just about the same, yet revenues plummeted and the extra $200 billion CAN be put on Obama's shoulders? Honesty. Try it!

Yes, that's right. He didn't sign; Obama did. Provisions in it were not what W would have proposed.

Now may we move on?

You mean he would've demanded the tax cuts be kept permanently AND cost US another $4 trillion the next decade? Shocking

Yes, lets not give Dubya the final F/Y budget like EVERY pother US Prez has had, because his $3.1+ trillion budget wasn't the same as the ending $3.4 trillion budget *shaking head*

Presidents do not get credit or blame for bills they did not sign.

What an idiot.

 

[Dad2three]

Obama and the democrats did try to correct the bad policy that the bush boy and republicans forced on our nation.

Pelosi got a lot of it passed through the House. However when it got to the Senate the republicans filibustered it. Just as they filibustered almost every piece of legislation that was passed out of the House.

Now before you start in on super majorities being able to break that republican filibuster, the democrats never had 60 people in their seats to vote.

If you're honest you will remember that Al Franken wasn't sworn in until SEVEN months after everyone else. He was sworn in to the Senate in July 2009. By that time senators Byrd and Kennedy were dying. They weren't actually in their seats to vote. They were in the hospital mostly on their death beds. When Kennedy died Massachusetts elected a republican for his seat.

So there never was a 60 seat majority for the democrats to break the gop filibuster and pass the legislation to correct all the bad policy the bush boy enacted and left behind.

The republicans want that policy to stay in place and we've been suffering from it all this time. It won't stop until democrats have control of the house and a filibuster proof majority in the senate. Which I don't see happening anytime soon. The gop has gerrymandered the seats in the House so much that it will be nearly impossible to break that majority.

You do know that Senate rules prohibit filibusters on budget bills, right?

While a filibuster is prohibited for budget bills, the senate also has a rule that for it to actually go into effect or be enacted it must have cooperation from the House in a resolution passed by the house. OR at least 60 votes in the Senate.
Parliamentary procedure: Why the Senate hasn't passed a budget | The Economist

From the article:

It's true that you cannot filibuster a budget resolution in the Senate, because the Budget Act provides special rules for consideration of a budget resolution, including a time limit on debate. So the Senate can pass a resolution with only a majority vote. However, the resolution does not take effect when the Senate passes it. It takes effect in one of two ways: if the House and Senate pass an identical resolution, usually in the form of a conference report; or if the Senate passes a separate Senate Resolution (as opposed to a concurrent resolution, which is what a budget resolution is) that says the House is “deemed” to have agreed to the budget resolution passed by the Senate.

But there are no special procedures for the simple Senate Resolution required by this second, “deeming” process, so it is subject to the unlimited debate allowed on almost everything in the Senate. If you do not have the support of 60 Senators to invoke cloture and end a filibuster, or prevent a filibuster from even starting (because everyone knows 60 Senators support cloture), you cannot pass such a deeming resolution in the Senate.

Because its rules are different, the House with a simple majority can pass a resolution deeming that the House and Senate have agreed to the House resolution so that it can take effect. This means the allocations in the resolution, such as for appropriations, are in effect in the House and anybody can raise a point-of-order against legislation that would cause a committee to exceed its allocation.

But this is for purposes of enforcement in the House only. What the House does has no effect whatsoever on the Senate or its budget enforcement. And vice versa, if the Senate deems that its budget resolution has been agreed to.
With the exception of reconciliation legislation, it effectively takes 60 votes to consider any legislation in the Senate so it really does not matter whether the resolution has been adopted; if you have 60, you can consider the legislation, if you don't, you can't.

The bottom line is the budget process set out in the Budget Act works pretty well when the Congress can agree on budget policies. When they cannot, no process in the world can make things work smoothly, but Congress muddles through and does what absolutely has to be done (like keeping the government from shutting down or defaulting on the debt). Not having a budget resolution in place is a symptom of the inability to reach agreement – not the cause of Congress not being able to accomplish things.


Correcting the mess the bush boy and gop left behind can't be done in just a budget. It will and did take separate legislation to reverse the damage. For example:

Nancy Pelosi passed a bill that removed the tax benefits of moving a business out of America. It imposed penalties for those who did it and it gave tax rewards to those who brought business back to America. When it got to the Senate the republicans promptly filibustered it and killed it.

Pelosi also passed a bill that would remove a lot the subsidies and tax loopholes that big oil companies receive. When it got to the Senate the republicans filibustered it and killed it.

I can go on and on with good legislation that was passed in the House only to be filibustered and killed in the Senate by the republicans.

Thank you for your link on the budget resolution process.

You make, however, a very common error in confusing the budget resolution, which is really only a guideline for Congressional committee action, with actual appropriations legislation, which is binding on the entire nation.

Go back and understand the difference and then perhaps we can talk.

That specific article was about budget resolutions.

The same rules apply to the budget.

It has to have the house approve it or 60 votes in the senate to actually implement or enact it.

No, a majority vote of both Houses AND a Presidential signature is all that is required for the 12 annual appropriations bills to pass.

You people are ignorant and you get all wrapped up with the budget resolution process, which is advisory. It is not law.

You mean the GOP was being disingenuous when they claimed Obama hadn't passed a budget resolution for the 1,000+ days??? I'm shocked

 

[Dad2three]

The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request submitted by President George W. Bush to the 110th Congress. The final resolution written and submitted by the 110th Congress to be forwarded to the President was approved by the House on June 5, 2008

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll382.xml


On February 4, 2008, President George W. Bush submitted (as is customary for a president to do so) a budget request to the U.S. Congress for fiscal year (FY) 2009. It would amount to $3.1 trillion in federal spending, and trim spending on several domestic programs while eliminating others. In addition, his proposal would make permanent the tax cuts passed during his first term and increase defense spending by 5 percent
FY 2009 U.S. federal budget - OpenCongress Wiki



WANT TO TRY AGAIN BUBBA??

First of all, I'm no Bubba. Tends to be a term applied to men.

Secondly, you do not understand the budgetary and appropriations process. As someone whose career was doing that, I find posting the same basic information over and over to you tedious because you are ignorant and not learning.

You mean your a Bubbette who isn't honest? I'm shocked. Basic info is DUBYA, LIKE EVERY OTHER US PREZ IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS FINAL F/Y BUDGET THAT STARTS 4 MONTHS BEFORE HE LEFT OFFICE. To claim otherwise is BS!!!

Please tell me about this spending inferno Obama created if not??? lol

No, he is not. He did not sign the final appropriations bill and the final approps that passed had proposals in them (i.e., Porkulus) he most definitely would not have signed.

Nah, Dubya ONLY signed the first stimulus right? (Jan 2008 , $152 billion, lol) BUT the link I gave you SHOWED 2009 F/Y stimulus was less than $115 billion in 2009

Obama s Spending Inferno or Not

Yeah, like the GOP who 85% who signed onto Dubya's stimulus, the GOP was keen to help US when a Dem cam,e into office (not even backing Dubya's $700 BILLION TARP BAILOUT!!!)




FLASHBACK: 85 Percent Of House Republicans Who Were Serving In ‘08 Voted For Bush’s Stimulus Act

He signed the bailout. Which was all paid back.

He did not sign Porkulus or any full year appropriation.

Paid back? Oh so it DIDN'T count as spending in F/Y 2009??? lol

Yeah, horrible that $787 billion stimulus was that was 40% tax cuts so the GOP didn't block it in the Senate then the 40% to keep the states from crashing, (thanks to 8 years Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies) leaving a whopping amount equal to Dubya's stimulus *tax rebates of 2008, lol) to be spent on infrastructure. Weird right?

 

[Dad2three]

Goood for you Bubba

Reagan's proposals were based on such optimistic forecasts of the economy that they bore little resemblance to reality.

To understand how the ruse works, a brief review of the budget process is helpful. A budget passed by Congress is not written in stone; there are actually many flexible items in it. One example is unemployment. The budget says, "Pay each unemployed person XXXX amount in unemployment compensation." If the unemployment rate rises higher next year than anticipated, the budget automatically pays these extra individuals without requiring Congressional action.

Another example of a flexible budget item is interest on the debt. If interest rates soar or receipts drop more than expected, then interests costs are going to be greater. These are paid without Congressional action (unless the debt limit is reached).

In the president's budget proposals, he must estimate next year's unemployment rate, interest rates, and several other economic indicators. We have already seen that in Reagan's first budget, David Stockman came up with a super-optimistic forecast that predicted 5 percent economic growth. (The higher the growth, the less government has to spend on unemployment, welfare, stimulus packages, etc.) Today, Stockman derisively refers to his first budget as the "Rosy Scenario." Although Reagan's remaining budgets were not quite as far-fetched as the Rosy Scenario, they were indeed much too optimistic. In fact, the only reason why spending surpassed the requests in only 7 instead of all 8 years was because one year -- 1984 -- actually saw a phenomenal spike of 6 percent growth.

What supply-siders are doing with the above chart, then, is comparing what was spent in the real world with what Reagan proposed in 8 Rosy Scenarios. They then blame the difference on Congressional action -- despite the fact that Congress didn't act on these increases.

The ruse is akin to a President proposing to spend one dollar on the budget next year, and blaming Congress for (inevitably) exceeding this proposal. Even if it turns out that Congress cuts the real budget, and the economy does better than normal!

As reported on the previous page, the House Appropriations Committee conducted a study that compared Reagan's concrete proposals to what Congress actually passed, not what was spent afterwards. And it found that Reagan asked for $29.4 billion more than Congress passed.

Reagan s Budget Proposals


NEXT TALKING POINT? TELL ME ABOUT THE DEMS NOT HOLDING UP THEIR SIDE OF NONIE'S BARGAIN? PLEASE?

You still don't get it, do you?

That Congress gave Ronnie less money than he asked for? Sure. Do you?

They didn't.

The House Appropriations Committee conducted a study that compared Reagan's concrete proposals to what Congress actually passed, not what was spent afterwards. And it found that Reagan asked for $29.4 billion more than Congress passed.

Reagan s Budget Proposals

A link from huppi.com is not a credible source. I don't care where they say they got their information. If you have House Appropriations Committee analyses, then link directly from that source.

With FACT based data, PROVE Ronnie got more than he asked. Stay off Heritage BS "math" AND remember he had a GOP Senate AND the CBO and CRS rarely agreed with his "math"

 

[AmericanGirl05]

You still don't get it, do you?

That Congress gave Ronnie less money than he asked for? Sure. Do you?

They didn't.

The House Appropriations Committee conducted a study that compared Reagan's concrete proposals to what Congress actually passed, not what was spent afterwards. And it found that Reagan asked for $29.4 billion more than Congress passed.

Reagan s Budget Proposals

A link from huppi.com is not a credible source. I don't care where they say they got their information. If you have House Appropriations Committee analyses, then link directly from that source.

With FACT based data, PROVE Ronnie got more than he asked. Stay off Heritage BS "math" AND remember he had a GOP Senate AND the CBO and CRS rarely agreed with his "math"

It's your thesis, not mine. You posted a link from a non-authoritative source.

I'm posting from personal professional knowledge, not some advocacy site.

 

[Flash]

Democrats promise bad government and deliver bad government.

Republicans promise good government but deliver bad government.

Trying to shift the blame for out of control debt ridden government from the Democrats to the Republicans because the Republicans act like Democrats when in power may be amusing but does not excuse the Democrats for their failures.

 

[Dana7360]

Obama and the democrats did try to correct the bad policy that the bush boy and republicans forced on our nation.

Pelosi got a lot of it passed through the House. However when it got to the Senate the republicans filibustered it. Just as they filibustered almost every piece of legislation that was passed out of the House.

Now before you start in on super majorities being able to break that republican filibuster, the democrats never had 60 people in their seats to vote.

If you're honest you will remember that Al Franken wasn't sworn in until SEVEN months after everyone else. He was sworn in to the Senate in July 2009. By that time senators Byrd and Kennedy were dying. They weren't actually in their seats to vote. They were in the hospital mostly on their death beds. When Kennedy died Massachusetts elected a republican for his seat.

So there never was a 60 seat majority for the democrats to break the gop filibuster and pass the legislation to correct all the bad policy the bush boy enacted and left behind.

The republicans want that policy to stay in place and we've been suffering from it all this time. It won't stop until democrats have control of the house and a filibuster proof majority in the senate. Which I don't see happening anytime soon. The gop has gerrymandered the seats in the House so much that it will be nearly impossible to break that majority.

You do know that Senate rules prohibit filibusters on budget bills, right?

While a filibuster is prohibited for budget bills, the senate also has a rule that for it to actually go into effect or be enacted it must have cooperation from the House in a resolution passed by the house. OR at least 60 votes in the Senate.
Parliamentary procedure: Why the Senate hasn't passed a budget | The Economist

From the article:

It's true that you cannot filibuster a budget resolution in the Senate, because the Budget Act provides special rules for consideration of a budget resolution, including a time limit on debate. So the Senate can pass a resolution with only a majority vote. However, the resolution does not take effect when the Senate passes it. It takes effect in one of two ways: if the House and Senate pass an identical resolution, usually in the form of a conference report; or if the Senate passes a separate Senate Resolution (as opposed to a concurrent resolution, which is what a budget resolution is) that says the House is “deemed” to have agreed to the budget resolution passed by the Senate.

But there are no special procedures for the simple Senate Resolution required by this second, “deeming” process, so it is subject to the unlimited debate allowed on almost everything in the Senate. If you do not have the support of 60 Senators to invoke cloture and end a filibuster, or prevent a filibuster from even starting (because everyone knows 60 Senators support cloture), you cannot pass such a deeming resolution in the Senate.

Because its rules are different, the House with a simple majority can pass a resolution deeming that the House and Senate have agreed to the House resolution so that it can take effect. This means the allocations in the resolution, such as for appropriations, are in effect in the House and anybody can raise a point-of-order against legislation that would cause a committee to exceed its allocation.

But this is for purposes of enforcement in the House only. What the House does has no effect whatsoever on the Senate or its budget enforcement. And vice versa, if the Senate deems that its budget resolution has been agreed to.
With the exception of reconciliation legislation, it effectively takes 60 votes to consider any legislation in the Senate so it really does not matter whether the resolution has been adopted; if you have 60, you can consider the legislation, if you don't, you can't.

The bottom line is the budget process set out in the Budget Act works pretty well when the Congress can agree on budget policies. When they cannot, no process in the world can make things work smoothly, but Congress muddles through and does what absolutely has to be done (like keeping the government from shutting down or defaulting on the debt). Not having a budget resolution in place is a symptom of the inability to reach agreement – not the cause of Congress not being able to accomplish things.


Correcting the mess the bush boy and gop left behind can't be done in just a budget. It will and did take separate legislation to reverse the damage. For example:

Nancy Pelosi passed a bill that removed the tax benefits of moving a business out of America. It imposed penalties for those who did it and it gave tax rewards to those who brought business back to America. When it got to the Senate the republicans promptly filibustered it and killed it.

Pelosi also passed a bill that would remove a lot the subsidies and tax loopholes that big oil companies receive. When it got to the Senate the republicans filibustered it and killed it.

I can go on and on with good legislation that was passed in the House only to be filibustered and killed in the Senate by the republicans.

Thank you for your link on the budget resolution process.

You make, however, a very common error in confusing the budget resolution, which is really only a guideline for Congressional committee action, with actual appropriations legislation, which is binding on the entire nation.

Go back and understand the difference and then perhaps we can talk.

That specific article was about budget resolutions.

The same rules apply to the budget.

It has to have the house approve it or 60 votes in the senate to actually implement or enact it.

No, a majority vote of both Houses AND a Presidential signature is all that is required for the 12 annual appropriations bills to pass.

You people are ignorant and you get all wrapped up with the budget resolution process, which is advisory. It is not law.

Actually you're not the person who knows what a budget resolution is.

The budget is what the president proposes.

It goes to the congress. They hold hearings on the president's proposals.

Then the congress comes up with their own budget.

It's always been called a budget resolution. The president's budget is never passed. What's passed is what the congress writes which is a budget resolution.

But the president's budget has to go through the same process as the budget resolution. No filibuster can be done on the actual legislation.

But implementing or enacting it needs the house cooperation or 60 votes in the senate.

You also need to know that if the house and senate come up with different budget resolutions, they must be reconciled and then voted on.

So if the senate changes the budget that comes out of the house, the house also needs to vote on the changes.

You need to learn the differences of a budget and a budget resolution, how the process works to get a budget passed and the difference between passed legislation and IMPLEMENT/ENACTED legislation and how that process works.

 

[AmericanGirl05]

You do know that Senate rules prohibit filibusters on budget bills, right?

While a filibuster is prohibited for budget bills, the senate also has a rule that for it to actually go into effect or be enacted it must have cooperation from the House in a resolution passed by the house. OR at least 60 votes in the Senate.
Parliamentary procedure: Why the Senate hasn't passed a budget | The Economist

From the article:

It's true that you cannot filibuster a budget resolution in the Senate, because the Budget Act provides special rules for consideration of a budget resolution, including a time limit on debate. So the Senate can pass a resolution with only a majority vote. However, the resolution does not take effect when the Senate passes it. It takes effect in one of two ways: if the House and Senate pass an identical resolution, usually in the form of a conference report; or if the Senate passes a separate Senate Resolution (as opposed to a concurrent resolution, which is what a budget resolution is) that says the House is “deemed” to have agreed to the budget resolution passed by the Senate.

But there are no special procedures for the simple Senate Resolution required by this second, “deeming” process, so it is subject to the unlimited debate allowed on almost everything in the Senate. If you do not have the support of 60 Senators to invoke cloture and end a filibuster, or prevent a filibuster from even starting (because everyone knows 60 Senators support cloture), you cannot pass such a deeming resolution in the Senate.

Because its rules are different, the House with a simple majority can pass a resolution deeming that the House and Senate have agreed to the House resolution so that it can take effect. This means the allocations in the resolution, such as for appropriations, are in effect in the House and anybody can raise a point-of-order against legislation that would cause a committee to exceed its allocation.

But this is for purposes of enforcement in the House only. What the House does has no effect whatsoever on the Senate or its budget enforcement. And vice versa, if the Senate deems that its budget resolution has been agreed to.
With the exception of reconciliation legislation, it effectively takes 60 votes to consider any legislation in the Senate so it really does not matter whether the resolution has been adopted; if you have 60, you can consider the legislation, if you don't, you can't.

The bottom line is the budget process set out in the Budget Act works pretty well when the Congress can agree on budget policies. When they cannot, no process in the world can make things work smoothly, but Congress muddles through and does what absolutely has to be done (like keeping the government from shutting down or defaulting on the debt). Not having a budget resolution in place is a symptom of the inability to reach agreement – not the cause of Congress not being able to accomplish things.


Correcting the mess the bush boy and gop left behind can't be done in just a budget. It will and did take separate legislation to reverse the damage. For example:

Nancy Pelosi passed a bill that removed the tax benefits of moving a business out of America. It imposed penalties for those who did it and it gave tax rewards to those who brought business back to America. When it got to the Senate the republicans promptly filibustered it and killed it.

Pelosi also passed a bill that would remove a lot the subsidies and tax loopholes that big oil companies receive. When it got to the Senate the republicans filibustered it and killed it.

I can go on and on with good legislation that was passed in the House only to be filibustered and killed in the Senate by the republicans.

Thank you for your link on the budget resolution process.

You make, however, a very common error in confusing the budget resolution, which is really only a guideline for Congressional committee action, with actual appropriations legislation, which is binding on the entire nation.

Go back and understand the difference and then perhaps we can talk.

That specific article was about budget resolutions.

The same rules apply to the budget.

It has to have the house approve it or 60 votes in the senate to actually implement or enact it.

No, a majority vote of both Houses AND a Presidential signature is all that is required for the 12 annual appropriations bills to pass.

You people are ignorant and you get all wrapped up with the budget resolution process, which is advisory. It is not law.

Actually you're not the person who knows what a budget resolution is.

The budget is what the president proposes.

It goes to the congress. They hold hearings on the president's proposals.

Then the congress comes up with their own budget.

It's always been called a budget resolution. The president's budget is never passed. What's passed is what the congress writes which is a budget resolution.

But the president's budget has to go through the same process as the budget resolution. No filibuster can be done on the actual legislation.

But implementing or enacting it needs the house cooperation or 60 votes in the senate.

You also need to know that if the house and senate come up with different budget resolutions, they must be reconciled and then voted on.

So if the senate changes the budget that comes out of the house, the house also needs to vote on the changes.

You need to learn the differences of a budget and a budget resolution, how the process works to get a budget passed and the difference between passed legislation and IMPLEMENT/ENACTED legislation and how that process works.

Hey, stupid.

The budget resolution is nothing but a guideline for Congressional appropriations committees to come up with the actual appropriations bills which constitute the approved spending.

The budget resolution is nothing but Congressional window dressing.

You need to understand the difference between the budget resolution -- a Congressional planning exercise -- and actual appropriations law.

 

[Dad2three]

February 4, 2008

Bush Seeks Budget of $3.1 Trillion

Mr. Bush said he would cut or terminate 151 programs, saving $18 billion in 2009. One agency, the Education Department, accounts for 47 of the terminated programs and three of the programs to be cut. But he would increase spending in areas that fall under the umbrella of “national security.”

Mr. Bush’s proposed budget, the first in the nation’s history to exceed $3 trillion, foresees near-record deficits just ahead — $410 billion in the current fiscal year, on spending of $2.9 trillion, and $407 billion for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 — before the budget would come into balance in 2012.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/washington/04cnd-budget.html?_r=0



Total expenditures $3.107 trillion (estimated)
$3.518 trillion (actual)
Budget FY 2011 - Summary Tables


NAH, DUBYA SHOULDN'T OWN MOST OF THE BUDGET RIGHT?? lol

It wasn't enacted. Go away till you understand the process.

So in your world, that means the final F/Y budget, which was finally put in place, wasn't the responsibility like EVERY other US Prez in his final year?? Even though spending was just about the same, yet revenues plummeted and the extra $200 billion CAN be put on Obama's shoulders? Honesty. Try it!

Yes, that's right. He didn't sign; Obama did. Provisions in it were not what W would have proposed.

Now may we move on?

You mean he would've demanded the tax cuts be kept permanently AND cost US another $4 trillion the next decade? Shocking

Yes, lets not give Dubya the final F/Y budget like EVERY pother US Prez has had, because his $3.1+ trillion budget wasn't the same as the ending $3.4 trillion budget *shaking head*

Presidents do not get credit or blame for bills they did not sign.

What an idiot.

Got it Bubbette, in right wing world, the Prez who begins the F/Y with his $3.1+ trillion budget proposal, THEN sees a collapse of the economy and gets a $700+ TARP passed, WOULDN'T had tried to get a stimulus (again) since he was sooo responsible in his 2 UNFUNDED tax cuts, 2 UNFUNDED wars OR UNFUNDED Medicare expansion. AND like EVERY other US Prez, he shouldn't be held responsible for his last F/Y budget AND CBO's predicted $1.2+ deficit 12 days BEFORE Obama *shaking head*

 

[Dad2three]

That Congress gave Ronnie less money than he asked for? Sure. Do you?

They didn't.

The House Appropriations Committee conducted a study that compared Reagan's concrete proposals to what Congress actually passed, not what was spent afterwards. And it found that Reagan asked for $29.4 billion more than Congress passed.

Reagan s Budget Proposals

A link from huppi.com is not a credible source. I don't care where they say they got their information. If you have House Appropriations Committee analyses, then link directly from that source.

With FACT based data, PROVE Ronnie got more than he asked. Stay off Heritage BS "math" AND remember he had a GOP Senate AND the CBO and CRS rarely agreed with his "math"

It's your thesis, not mine. You posted a link from a non-authoritative source.

I'm posting from personal professional knowledge, not some advocacy site.

Personal professional? Oh you mean a right wing liar? Shocking


BUT YES YOU DID:

ME:
"That Congress gave Ronnie less money than he asked for? Sure. Do you?"

YOU:
"They didn't"