3 reductions to 1 tax increase. Dont listen to FOX or Rush or the other soldout-to-rich-lobbies, just pay attention to the actual numbers and make a deal. It's the best compromise this country will see for a long time. Set the partisan bullshit aside. This should be easy because the numbers are already in your favor. Take the deal. Don't be retarded douchebags...eh?
GOP if you actually love this country then make the compromise
- Thread starter smurphy
- Start date
The problem is, Smurphy:
The tax increases WILL happen yet the spending reductions will not - Congress has not had a budget for 800 days - WHO THE HELL CARES, right?
Well, since the budget is supposed to be voted on ANNUALLY (umm, every 365 days), then any proposed spending cuts will have to be re-approved every year.
And how do you propose spending cuts when there isn't even a budget?
Put it in the bill that all additional tax revenue can only be used to pay down the national debt and you might find some takers.
The tax increases WILL happen yet the spending reductions will not - Congress has not had a budget for 800 days - WHO THE HELL CARES, right?
Well, since the budget is supposed to be voted on ANNUALLY (umm, every 365 days), then any proposed spending cuts will have to be re-approved every year.
And how do you propose spending cuts when there isn't even a budget?
Put it in the bill that all additional tax revenue can only be used to pay down the national debt and you might find some takers.
You might want to bone up on the budget process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_and_Accounting_Act_of_1921
The president has done his part, as required by law, which is to submit a budget request between the first Monday in January and the first Monday in February. Obama has done that.
The House of Rep and Senate are is supposed to, by April (tradition, not law) finalize the budget.
Still waiting. :mj07:
Last edited:
York: Senate refuses to produce budget.
By Byron York/ Syndicated columnist
The MetroWest Daily News
Posted Jun 02, 2011 @ 08:15 AM
"Let's see it," a frustrated Sen. Jeff Sessions said on the Senate floor recently. "Let's bring it forward."
By "it," Sessions meant a Democratic proposal for a 2012 federal budget. In recent days, Sessions, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, has been asking, pushing, pleading, cajoling and begging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to put forward a Democratic plan. So far, Reid has steadfastly refused.
That's nothing new. The last time the Senate passed a budget was April 29, 2009, which was, if you are counting - and Jeff Sessions is - more than 760 days ago.
Passing a yearly budget for the federal government is a fundamental responsibility of Congress. Lawmakers do not have to spend their time naming post offices or passing healthcare reform. But they do have to pass a budget. In 2010, neither the House nor the Senate did so. It's not that members just didn't get around to it, which would have been scandalous enough. No, Reid and then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi feared that passing a budget would hurt their chances in the November midterm elections. So they did nothing and took a beating at the polls anyway.
Now Pelosi is out of the picture. But Reid is still at it. The Republican-controlled House has passed a budget, but Reid will not produce a Democratic spending proposal. And if Reid doesn't want to pass a budget, then a budget won't be passed; the majority leader controls what is and what is not considered in the Senate.
"There's no need to have a Democratic budget, in my opinion," Reid told the Los Angeles Times recently. "It would be foolish for us to do a budget at this stage." Instead, Reid wants to wait and see if the deficit-reduction meetings led by Vice President Biden bear any fruit. Before that, Reid wanted to wait for the Gang of Six - now nearly defunct - to come up with something.
Sessions was appalled when he read Reid's words. "It was a fundamental statement that they're playing politics," Sessions said. "They don't think it's politically smart to produce a budget. They'd rather produce nothing and attack Paul Ryan and the Republicans and think they're going to gain politically by avoiding their fundamental statutory responsibility. It's pretty breathtaking to me."
Reid isn't alone. The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Kent Conrad, is also happy not to produce a budget. Not long ago, he told reporters that he planned to "defer" work on a 2012 budget indefinitely.
It drives Republicans crazy that Democrats could so brazenly abandon such a basic responsibility. Recently, all 47 GOP senators signed a letter to Reid in hopes of shaming the majority leader into action.
"Last year, Congress failed to pass a budget, failed to pass any of the 12 annual appropriations bills, and failed the nation by recklessly funding the government on a series of short-term spending bills," the letter said. "The Senate cannot make the same mistake again."
Oh, yes it can. At Reid's instigation, the Senate spent its last week before the Memorial Day recess in a meaningless faux debate over the budget. Reid forced a vote on the House-passed GOP/Ryan budget - it was defeated 57 to 40 - so that Reid and fellow Democrats can accuse Republicans of voting to kill Medicare. In return, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell forced a vote on President Obama's proposed budget from a few months ago that did virtually nothing to reduce the deficit. It went down 97 to 0, so Republicans can say that Obama's plan is so terrible that Democrats ran away from it in droves.
All that happened instead of the Senate having a substantive debate and coming up with a compromise budget that can actually pass.
At some point, one gang or another, or perhaps the Biden group, will likely produce a deal that will be presented to the public as a fait accompli. "I think that's what Sen. Reid has in mind," said Sessions. "I don't believe the American people appreciated the secret negotiations that went on with regard to the healthcare bill or the immigration bill, and I don't think they're going to be very pleased to have some sort of a budget plopped down on them, with the Senate expected to vote up or down without any real debate or opportunity to make a difference."
The most amazing thing about all this, to Republicans, is that Reid's abdication of responsibility has attracted so little attention. In a country drowning in debt, where's the outrage?
Byron York is chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner.
Read more: York: Senate refuses to produce budget - Dedham, Massachusetts - The Dedham Transcript http://www.dailynewstranscript.com/...enate-refuses-to-produce-budget#ixzz1SOzP1Lkc
Drink some more KOOL-AID.
TIA
:facepalm:
By Byron York/ Syndicated columnist
The MetroWest Daily News
Posted Jun 02, 2011 @ 08:15 AM
"Let's see it," a frustrated Sen. Jeff Sessions said on the Senate floor recently. "Let's bring it forward."
By "it," Sessions meant a Democratic proposal for a 2012 federal budget. In recent days, Sessions, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, has been asking, pushing, pleading, cajoling and begging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to put forward a Democratic plan. So far, Reid has steadfastly refused.
That's nothing new. The last time the Senate passed a budget was April 29, 2009, which was, if you are counting - and Jeff Sessions is - more than 760 days ago.
Passing a yearly budget for the federal government is a fundamental responsibility of Congress. Lawmakers do not have to spend their time naming post offices or passing healthcare reform. But they do have to pass a budget. In 2010, neither the House nor the Senate did so. It's not that members just didn't get around to it, which would have been scandalous enough. No, Reid and then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi feared that passing a budget would hurt their chances in the November midterm elections. So they did nothing and took a beating at the polls anyway.
Now Pelosi is out of the picture. But Reid is still at it. The Republican-controlled House has passed a budget, but Reid will not produce a Democratic spending proposal. And if Reid doesn't want to pass a budget, then a budget won't be passed; the majority leader controls what is and what is not considered in the Senate.
"There's no need to have a Democratic budget, in my opinion," Reid told the Los Angeles Times recently. "It would be foolish for us to do a budget at this stage." Instead, Reid wants to wait and see if the deficit-reduction meetings led by Vice President Biden bear any fruit. Before that, Reid wanted to wait for the Gang of Six - now nearly defunct - to come up with something.
Sessions was appalled when he read Reid's words. "It was a fundamental statement that they're playing politics," Sessions said. "They don't think it's politically smart to produce a budget. They'd rather produce nothing and attack Paul Ryan and the Republicans and think they're going to gain politically by avoiding their fundamental statutory responsibility. It's pretty breathtaking to me."
Reid isn't alone. The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Kent Conrad, is also happy not to produce a budget. Not long ago, he told reporters that he planned to "defer" work on a 2012 budget indefinitely.
It drives Republicans crazy that Democrats could so brazenly abandon such a basic responsibility. Recently, all 47 GOP senators signed a letter to Reid in hopes of shaming the majority leader into action.
"Last year, Congress failed to pass a budget, failed to pass any of the 12 annual appropriations bills, and failed the nation by recklessly funding the government on a series of short-term spending bills," the letter said. "The Senate cannot make the same mistake again."
Oh, yes it can. At Reid's instigation, the Senate spent its last week before the Memorial Day recess in a meaningless faux debate over the budget. Reid forced a vote on the House-passed GOP/Ryan budget - it was defeated 57 to 40 - so that Reid and fellow Democrats can accuse Republicans of voting to kill Medicare. In return, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell forced a vote on President Obama's proposed budget from a few months ago that did virtually nothing to reduce the deficit. It went down 97 to 0, so Republicans can say that Obama's plan is so terrible that Democrats ran away from it in droves.
All that happened instead of the Senate having a substantive debate and coming up with a compromise budget that can actually pass.
At some point, one gang or another, or perhaps the Biden group, will likely produce a deal that will be presented to the public as a fait accompli. "I think that's what Sen. Reid has in mind," said Sessions. "I don't believe the American people appreciated the secret negotiations that went on with regard to the healthcare bill or the immigration bill, and I don't think they're going to be very pleased to have some sort of a budget plopped down on them, with the Senate expected to vote up or down without any real debate or opportunity to make a difference."
The most amazing thing about all this, to Republicans, is that Reid's abdication of responsibility has attracted so little attention. In a country drowning in debt, where's the outrage?
Byron York is chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner.
Read more: York: Senate refuses to produce budget - Dedham, Massachusetts - The Dedham Transcript http://www.dailynewstranscript.com/...enate-refuses-to-produce-budget#ixzz1SOzP1Lkc
Drink some more KOOL-AID.
TIA
:facepalm:
Thanks, Muff but where did I say anything about Obama and the budget?
I specifically mentioned Congress, who until the fall elections of 2010, held BOTH the HOUSE AND the SENATE and still failed to produce a BUDGET.
Is that clear enough for you?
I specifically mentioned Congress, who until the fall elections of 2010, held BOTH the HOUSE AND the SENATE and still failed to produce a BUDGET.
Is that clear enough for you?
