37 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
RE; Fortunately his budgets never get passed
so why is the financial mess caused by him?
The 'budget" means nothing to either party?
"passing" a budget is just a formality?
Harry Reid never presented a budget for 6 years
Everything passed was a "CR"
So both sides are responsible?
Nope...the House passed one
every year..........the Senate is REQUIRED BY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW to pass one, and Reid never did.
Re: Harry Reid?
Is this true?
There is no obligation for either or both houses of Congress to pass a budget resolution. There may not be a resolution every year; if none is established, the previous year's resolution remains in force.
You've shown me yours
I'm not impressed. Your link is more interested in a petition than making a statement of "facts", NON-Partisan FACTS.
I'll show you mine.
United States budget process
The President's budget submission is referred to the House and Senate Budget Committees and to the CBO. Other committees with budgetary responsibilities submit requests and estimates to the budget committees during this time.
In March, the CBO publishes an analysis of the President's budget proposals. The CBO budget report and other publications are also posted on the CBO website. CBO computes a current-law baseline budget projection that is intended to estimate what federal spending and revenues would be in the absence of new legislation for the current fiscal year and for the coming ten fiscal years. However, the CBO also computes a current-policy baseline, which makes assumptions about, for instance, votes on tax cut sunset provisions. The current CBO 10 year budget baseline projection grows from $3.7 trillion in 2011 to $5.7 trillion in 2021.
In March, the budget committees consider the President's budget proposals in the light of the CBO budget report, and each committee submits a budget resolution to its house by April 1. The House and Senate each consider these budget resolutions and are expected to pass them, possibly with amendments, by April 15.
There is no obligation for either or both houses of Congress to pass a budget resolution. There may not be a resolution every year; if none is established, the previous year's resolution remains in force. For example, the Senate has not passed a budget resolution for FY2011, FY2012, or FY2013, and passed the FY2014 budget resolution on March 23, 2013-23 days before the deadline set by the No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013. This was the first budget resolution passed by the Senate since a FY2010 budget passed on April 29, 2009. The House and Senate may propose a budget independently of the President's budget. For example, for the 2014 budget process, the House prepared its budget proposal on March 21, and the Senate proposed a budget on March 23, while the President's budget was not submitted until April 10.
YOU have the option to edit any errors you see on the Wikipedia page.....
PS Toni ...Just in case you dispute
if none is established, the previous year's resolution remains in force.
Go to approx 3:45 min mark
What is a budget resolution and why does the U.S. Congress try to pass one every year when it doesn't produce any binding language? Urban Institute Fellow Rudolph G. Penner, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, explains what a budget resolution was designed to do, how it came to be, how it is connected to the Watergate scandal, and what it means when Congress doesn't pass one.
Again, you like your source instead of mine
but both say the same thing........only your link calls it a 'budget resolution' and I called it a 'CR' (Continuing Resolution) because that's what Congress calls it.
The Senate, under Reid, had refused to pass its own budget even though they were required to do so by our Constitution, which then mandated the CR each year......
Fortunately, not passing a budget each year did NOT mandate accepting BO's budget instead............which is what my topic has been about.
RE: both say the same thing
yours says Harry Reid didn't pass a budget
mine says he doesn't have to.
Quite your whining?
Quit your whining?
Quiet your whining?
So you never had a point to make?
You just 'argue' for the sake of arguing..........as usual.....but can't admit I was/am right anyhow. According to the Constitution the Senate DOES have to.....CR's came about because a new Senate 'rule' was issued in order to avoid it if they don't want to, and Reid didn't want to for six years. That's how sequestration came about, too.....but you refuse to blame BO and the Dems for it, even though it was something BO ordered would happen. I personally think it ended up being a good thing.......but Dems ended up not being happy about it, until they could 'take credit' for the deficit reduction.
And all of this has nothing to do with BO's budgets that are out of control and not able to be passed, even by his own Dems...........
If you're going to cry about people
NOT doing what they don't have to do...buy more tissues.
RE: According to the Constitution the Senate DOES ...
According to the Constitution the Senate DOES have to.....CR's came about because a new Senate 'rule' was issued in order to avoid it if they don't want to,
So they "don't have to"........... Like I said...
Thank you...that wasn't too painful was it?
They "have to" but if they "don't want to" they can "have a CR"
Did you ever tell your kids...you have to go to school today, but if your don't want to, you can stay home?
Leave Reid alone.
Too bad your link gives an error and the video doesn't appear for me.....
In any event........if you had researched a little more, you would have found a few things of interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_resolution ...... The Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress and Watergate wasn't 'connected' to any of this other than the fact that Nixon was in the WH at the time. Nixon refused to spend the money that the Dems wanted spent so they came up with this budget resolution instead:
which forced a 'budget resolution' and Dems have taken advantage of it ever since....making changes as they saw fit a number of times to their advantage....take note of the fact that every change has been made by a Dem Controlled Congress.
I'm sure you will continue to believe that whatever the Dems want is the 'right thing to do' though...........
I'll be writing to my Republican/Tea Party leaders that perhaps we need to make a new change......eliminate the CR altogether and force a real budget for a change. Along with doing away with the IRS and the Dept of Education and a few other 'agencies'.........
Other than your insisting on being a PITA
I was reading the 'typed' caption (YOU wrote it and I couldn't confirm that you had it right) of what your link supposedly shows in the video....the video itself wouldn't appear for me and instead gave me an error telling me to 'come back later'.
My 'interesting' comment was based on that text that I just replied to with two new links regarding 'budget resolution' and how it came to be. I have to take your word for it that it was because of Watergate since nothing I came across indicates truth in that.
Why would I lie to you, JP? I don't need to in order to help you actually find the truth.
RE: I'll be writing to my Republican/Tea Party leaders that
I'll be writing to my Republican/Tea Party leaders that perhaps we need to make a new change.
Perhaps you should go to South Carolina and whisper in the Donalds ear
They're different words for the same meaning
I used 'CR' because that's what Congress calls it...........or didn't you read that part?
Even Wiki has a link to "Continuing Resolution".........different webpage, same description. I linked to the Wiki 'Budget Resolution' because that page went into more detail about the history of it and how it came about.....and again, it had nothing to do with Watergate, which is what YOUR video indicated.
RE; it had nothing to do with Watergate,
it had nothing to do with Watergate, which is what YOUR video indicated.The Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress and Watergate wasn't 'connected' to any of this other than the fact that Nixon was in the WH at the time
yet, according to you...it had something to do with Nixon.
Restraining the Imperial Presidency
No president went further than Richard Nixon in concentrating powers in the presidency. He refused to spend funds that Congress had appropriated; he claimed executive privilege against disclosure of information on administration decisions; he refused to allow key decision makers to be questioned before congressional committees; he reorganized the executive branch and broadened the authority of new cabinet positions without congressional approval; and during the Vietnam War, he ordered harbors mined and bombing raids launched without consulting Congress.
Watergate brought a halt to the "imperial presidency" and the growth of presidential power. Over the president's veto, Congress enacted the War Powers Act (1973), which required future presidents to obtain authorization from Congress to engage U.S. forces in foreign combat for more than 90 days. Under the law, a president who orders troops into action abroad must report the reason for this action to Congress within 48 hours.
In the wake of the Watergate scandal, Congress passed a series of laws designed to reform the political process. Disclosures during the Watergate investigations of money-laundering led Congress to provide public financing of presidential elections, public disclosure of sources of funding, limits on private campaign contributions and spending, and to enforce campaign finance laws by an independent Federal Election Commission. To make it easier for the Justice Department to investigate crimes in the executive branch, Congress now requires the attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate accusations of illegal activities. To re-assert its budget-making authority, Congress created a Congressional Budget Office and specifically forbade a president to impound funds without its approval. To open government to public scrutiny, Congress opened more committee deliberations and enacted the Freedom of Information Act, which allows the public and press to request the declassification of government documents.
By these standards alone
>>>To re-assert its budget-making authority, Congress created a Congressional Budget Office and specifically forbade a president to impound funds without its approval.>>>
BO has surpassed Nixon as the 'imperial President'..........
Opening paragraph: >>Over the course of the 20th century, the presidency gradually supplanted Congress as the center of federal power. Presidential authority increased, presidential staffs grew in size, and the executive branch gradually acquired a dominant relationship over Congress. >>>
Since the "digital history" article was copyrighted in 2014, I am going to assume that this is a liberal site that doesn't see the 'parallels' between Nixon and BO and still believes that Nixon was worse when, in fact, he was mild compared to BO's track record.
so you'll never mention Obama and budget again?
PRAISE THE LORD!!!!!
Correction....the last change
in 1997 was done by a Republican controlled Congress during Clinton's term, but we also had a surplus show up during those last four years (where there was NO surplus for his first four years) and real budgets WERE presented.
It sucks doesn't it?
take note of the fact that every change has been made by a Dem Controlled Congress.
Correction.....the last change in 1997 was done by a Republican controlled Congress
EVERY change EXCEPT for this one......
Pointing the finger at one group and then finding out that you were pointing in the wrong direction. Those guys are bad because they did this...then you find out that your side did exactly the same thing.
The Republicans didn't USE it......
Clinton saw the light and played nice with Congress during his last term and showed a surplus by doing so. Otherwise, IF a CR was used instead of budgets for the last four years, he would have been in the 'red' just like BO had been every year that Reid was in control until sequestration.
The TRUTH is that Republicans in 1997 CHANGED the CR rules but didn't have to USE it. Can I make that ANY more clear for you? The DEMS are the ones that created and implemented the CR for their benefit and agendas.....and continue to use it whenever they are in power to do so.
WHO, other than you, mentioned "USE"
No diversion or deflection
Reid, single handedly, refused to submit a budget for nearly six years straight.....that's a record in any history book. That's 'use'...........Dems thought it up, Dems have used it rather than follow the actual law of requirement. Show me where Republicans when in control have.
RE: refused to submit a budget for nearly six years straight
Why bother submitting a budget?
It would be like me submitting your budget.
Both sides submit THEIR budget, both sides reject the other sides budget, then you have a CR.
WHY waste money making a budget that you know will be rejected by the other side?
Don't you know how it works?
The ONLY thing that both sides have agreed on in the last 6 years is CRs, Go figure.
Thank you Harry Reid.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)