In other news, just out of curiosity, how are you spinning the President's microphone gaffe?
You don’t often hear an American president secretly (he thinks) assuring foreign leaders that concessions are coming their way, but that they must wait because he’s seeking reelection and he dare not tell his own people.
In other news, I thought I heard the President submitted a budget to congress recently...
how are you spinning the President's microphone gaffe?
I thought about writing something about it (and still may) but there's nothing really to spin because it wasn't a gaffe. Just as President Medvedev told Mitt Romney, I'm telling you...please join us in the year 2012. I know it's fun to play dress up in the Cold War era and the commies are comin' to gin us but, really, dave, this sort of thinking is going to hold us back.
The other thing to consider was...how exactly was he wrong? You guys will do nothing to support him because you want him to fail so trying to work out some sort of arrangement is ludicrous.
Regarding the budget, civics quiz for you...which budget bill did Congress recently pass that was binding?
The Budget Control Act of 2011 was a binding bill that was passed by Congress. It started with the president and John Boehner and then things were added from Reid and McConnell. Biden also had a hand in making sure it got done. It passed the House 269-161 and the Senate 74-26.
What's interesting about this bill is that, unlike the annual budgets passed by Congress, this one was actually binding. That's why I always chuckle when I hear the ol' "Democrats haven't passed a budget in 1000 days" chestnut. So what? None of them are binding. They are simply guidelines for the eventual appropriations bills that get passed. Those bills often have many changes in them from the budgets that do get passed so the mouth foaming (as usual) is quite amusing when you consider how things really work.
Congress has been passing appropriations bills all along and that's why Harry Reid is correct when he says it's redundant for the Senate to pass a budget. They already did-with broad bi-partisan support.
Not exactly true. Program budgets are defined in those, and while it is true that the actual appropriations may vary, all executive program decisions are based first and foremost on the budget. Absent an annual budget, programs must operate on the old budget basis and you have some programs that have not been able to adjust their plans because they didn't know what money they should count on.
Politically, the budget doesn't serve much purpose, but in terms of actual govt operations - yes, it does matter.
Hold us back from what pray tell? I’m a firm believer that our interests are not necessarily the same as other countries; and vice versa. I’m reminded of a story…don’t recall who the ambassador was, but I read a story one time about an ambassador giving a status report to his superior. The superior gestured to the map and asked, “Show me your country.” The ambassador promptly pointed to the foreign country to which he was assigned…and he was promptly fired. You see, his job was to represent our interests to the other, not work as liaison for the foreign government.
(You shrug it off, but if you’re an ally, Poland or Czech Republic for instance, how much do you trust in Mr. Obama about now? Israel?)
So the President won’t be working this year, you’re saying? Too busy being re-elected, so the people will have to wait for 12 months for some real work. Talk about a lame duck session... How ‘bout senators or congressmen? Should they avoid work in election years too? Boy, we’ll get nothin’ done if everyone has to take the year off for the elections.
…
I don’t get your reference to the budget act of 2011…did that repeal the act of 1921 (if I have my dates correct) or 1974? Or the various budgetary acts in the 80s and 90s? What in the 2011 act says that either house doesn’t have to present a budget? Regardless of it being binding or not… The 2011 act was so that congress could extend the debt limit and tied in a bunch of crap to be ignored later…controls and such to insure they actually curbed spending, which of course they didn’t. I must confess to not reading the entire bill, so if there are components in there that say budgets are no longer required of the senate or congress, I’m open to education…you are a teacher, after all...but I suspect you throw out an "Act" like come fact to supposedly end discussion with an incontrovertible fact...and then post some new threads to quickly change the topic.
The global marketplace. By continuing to perpetuate the idea that Russia is the same as it was in the 1970s, we risk being less competitive. Your apparent adherence to realism (a policy that failed along with liberalism as neither predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union) invariably leads to protectionism.
You see, his job was to represent our interests to the other, not work as liaison for the foreign government.
This is the sort of nonsense that has plagued the president since he took office. That somehow he's not really an American nor is he representing our interests. This is cultspeak,, dave, and has no place in reality. In fact, by accepting the world as it is, he represents our country more effectively. Adopting a paranoid, xenophobic look at the world based on jingoism is not going to work in this day and age. North Korea, Cuba and Iran are fine examples of what happens when you go down this path.
Should they avoid work in election years too?
Being a conservative, I would think you would other conservatives to take responsibility for their actions. The reason why things won't get done is because your side is intransigent. YOU are the ones saying that you don't want the government doing anything, right?
I don’t get your reference to the budget act of 2011
To repeat myself, it's a binding piece of legislation unlike all the other annual budgets that have been passed over time. In short, it's law. It's up to the AC to pass resolutions that implement the annual budget. Those resolutions are law, not the budgets themselves.
My point was that the budgets aren't binding so the silliness about Congress not passing them is not really an honest assessment.
My point was that the budgets aren't binding so the silliness about Congress not passing them is not really an honest assessment.
Yes you said that, without giving my point any consideration. Note, I am talking about why a budget matters to the operation of the govt. You only care about the political circus aspect.
8 comments:
Most amusing...
In other news, just out of curiosity, how are you spinning the President's microphone gaffe?
You don’t often hear an American president secretly (he thinks) assuring foreign leaders that concessions are coming their way, but that they must wait because he’s seeking reelection and he dare not tell his own people.
In other news, I thought I heard the President submitted a budget to congress recently...
how are you spinning the President's microphone gaffe?
I thought about writing something about it (and still may) but there's nothing really to spin because it wasn't a gaffe. Just as President Medvedev told Mitt Romney, I'm telling you...please join us in the year 2012. I know it's fun to play dress up in the Cold War era and the commies are comin' to gin us but, really, dave, this sort of thinking is going to hold us back.
The other thing to consider was...how exactly was he wrong? You guys will do nothing to support him because you want him to fail so trying to work out some sort of arrangement is ludicrous.
Regarding the budget, civics quiz for you...which budget bill did Congress recently pass that was binding?
which budget bill did Congress recently pass that was binding?
Not Obama's. Not even one Democrat in the House voted for it.
(buzzer sound)
Wrong.
The Budget Control Act of 2011 was a binding bill that was passed by Congress. It started with the president and John Boehner and then things were added from Reid and McConnell. Biden also had a hand in making sure it got done. It passed the House 269-161 and the Senate 74-26.
What's interesting about this bill is that, unlike the annual budgets passed by Congress, this one was actually binding. That's why I always chuckle when I hear the ol' "Democrats haven't passed a budget in 1000 days" chestnut. So what? None of them are binding. They are simply guidelines for the eventual appropriations bills that get passed. Those bills often have many changes in them from the budgets that do get passed so the mouth foaming (as usual) is quite amusing when you consider how things really work.
Congress has been passing appropriations bills all along and that's why Harry Reid is correct when he says it's redundant for the Senate to pass a budget. They already did-with broad bi-partisan support.
So what? None of them are binding.
Not exactly true. Program budgets are defined in those, and while it is true that the actual appropriations may vary, all executive program decisions are based first and foremost on the budget. Absent an annual budget, programs must operate on the old budget basis and you have some programs that have not been able to adjust their plans because they didn't know what money they should count on.
Politically, the budget doesn't serve much purpose, but in terms of actual govt operations - yes, it does matter.
Hold us back from what pray tell? I’m a firm believer that our interests are not necessarily the same as other countries; and vice versa. I’m reminded of a story…don’t recall who the ambassador was, but I read a story one time about an ambassador giving a status report to his superior. The superior gestured to the map and asked, “Show me your country.” The ambassador promptly pointed to the foreign country to which he was assigned…and he was promptly fired. You see, his job was to represent our interests to the other, not work as liaison for the foreign government.
(You shrug it off, but if you’re an ally, Poland or Czech Republic for instance, how much do you trust in Mr. Obama about now? Israel?)
So the President won’t be working this year, you’re saying? Too busy being re-elected, so the people will have to wait for 12 months for some real work. Talk about a lame duck session... How ‘bout senators or congressmen? Should they avoid work in election years too? Boy, we’ll get nothin’ done if everyone has to take the year off for the elections.
…
I don’t get your reference to the budget act of 2011…did that repeal the act of 1921 (if I have my dates correct) or 1974? Or the various budgetary acts in the 80s and 90s? What in the 2011 act says that either house doesn’t have to present a budget? Regardless of it being binding or not… The 2011 act was so that congress could extend the debt limit and tied in a bunch of crap to be ignored later…controls and such to insure they actually curbed spending, which of course they didn’t. I must confess to not reading the entire bill, so if there are components in there that say budgets are no longer required of the senate or congress, I’m open to education…you are a teacher, after all...but I suspect you throw out an "Act" like come fact to supposedly end discussion with an incontrovertible fact...and then post some new threads to quickly change the topic.
Hold us back from what pray tell?
The global marketplace. By continuing to perpetuate the idea that Russia is the same as it was in the 1970s, we risk being less competitive. Your apparent adherence to realism (a policy that failed along with liberalism as neither predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union) invariably leads to protectionism.
You see, his job was to represent our interests to the other, not work as liaison for the foreign government.
This is the sort of nonsense that has plagued the president since he took office. That somehow he's not really an American nor is he representing our interests. This is cultspeak,, dave, and has no place in reality. In fact, by accepting the world as it is, he represents our country more effectively. Adopting a paranoid, xenophobic look at the world based on jingoism is not going to work in this day and age. North Korea, Cuba and Iran are fine examples of what happens when you go down this path.
Should they avoid work in election years too?
Being a conservative, I would think you would other conservatives to take responsibility for their actions. The reason why things won't get done is because your side is intransigent. YOU are the ones saying that you don't want the government doing anything, right?
I don’t get your reference to the budget act of 2011
To repeat myself, it's a binding piece of legislation unlike all the other annual budgets that have been passed over time. In short, it's law. It's up to the AC to pass resolutions that implement the annual budget. Those resolutions are law, not the budgets themselves.
My point was that the budgets aren't binding so the silliness about Congress not passing them is not really an honest assessment.
My point was that the budgets aren't binding so the silliness about Congress not passing them is not really an honest assessment.
Yes you said that, without giving my point any consideration. Note, I am talking about why a budget matters to the operation of the govt. You only care about the political circus aspect.
Post a Comment