VETO

Mr President

Tell them today that you will veto anything that is less than a full year increase because it hurts the economy.

Not only should members of Congress not get paid, the American people should get a refund from last year, since members of the House took so much time off. How many days a week/month did they actually do any work--and when they did "work" what of any substance did they actually accomplish? Zero, zip, nada! Let's dock their pay! I am sure they get enough money from lobbyists, so they have no need for their paychecks from the American people! Time to get tough with these slackers! They should answer to us--not to the lobbyists.

"We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo by Walt Kelly

3 months? That should settle the stomachs of the international financial community. Morons, morons everywhere and not a rational thought amongst them.

Seems to be a fair request.

We do need debt reduction. This process removes the immediate challenge of the ebt ceiling, and places the debt reduction firmly on the table. No more excuses this time.

What a bunch of bull@!$%#!

Listen up Republican leadership: We are sick and tired of this crap! Deal with it, work through it, and get the damn thing done! We don't want to deal with this again in three months, and then what? Limp along for another three months while you guys figure out how to get your heads out of your ass?! One of the best things you could do for your party would be to put Lyin Ryan in the basement with duct tape across his mouth!

Stand your ground, Mr. President! Veto anything less than a one year debt ceiling deal!

No short-term extensions.

No more copouts for the Do-Nothing-But-Block-Job-Creation-GOP congressionals.

Or maybe...

Let's renew their job contracts every 3 months.

Actually I feel like Occam's Razor. Finished the fiscal cliff thing with the dems with only promises of cutting spending. This gives the dems and the POTUS a three month extension to show that they "negotiated" (term used loosely) in good faith and really WANT to cut spending. I think it is quite generous for the GOP/House to afford them this extra time to live up to their word. I myself wouldn't hold my breath but at least the GOP is being sympathetic to the Dem inability to make good on their side of the bargain.

I honestly believe most of the liberals on this site have zero reading comprehension. It is a 3 month extension with an agreement for a long term extension IF THE SENATE PASSES A BUDGET. No more getting out of their legal obligations. If they want to debt spend, they have to show America where they want to spend excess credit.

This is the most straight forward and fair way to handle this debt limit. Put it on paper, let America know why you are spending what you want to spend. No more failing to do your jobs.

Democrats in the Senate have failed for 3 years to deliver a budget, hiding their spending behind continuing resolutions. It is time for them to actually do their legally mandated jobs. Filibusters can not hold up a budget, they are straight majority votes.

No wonder liberals are blasting this idea, it will force Democrats out into the light.

Listen up Republican leadership: We are sick and tired of this crap! Deal with it, work through it, and get the damn thing done!

You can say the same thing to the Democrat leadership in the Senate. We are sick and tired of not having a legal budget passed every year as required by law. No more continuing resolutions. Deal with it Reid! Work through it and pass a damn budget for the first time since Obama's been president!

No Deal. The President wants a year, and that is what he will get. Period!

When will Otis and his sycophant's grow a pair?

Otis and the entire party formerly known as the GOP have been neutered by the TeaPeople!

We Progressives need to take back the House in 2014, and get rid of these TB/GOP'ers who agree with the Norquist plan of making government so small you can drown it in a bathtub."

We need a FUNCTIONING government & we won't get that as long as the ReThuglicans can obstruct obstruct obstruct.

We screwed up when we shrugged off the 2010 mid-terms - we can't make that mistake again.

FORWARD! :-)

Seems to be a fair request.

We do need debt reduction. This process removes the immediate challenge of the ebt ceiling, and places the debt reduction firmly on the table. No more excuses this time.

Fair? What is fair about it? "removes the immediate challenge of the debt ceiling" - well, the current debt ceiling limit was established quite a while ago, there was no immediate challenge then, why didn't anyone address it then?

No, frankly, it doesn't matter how immediate the challenge is, Republicans have no intention of doing anything but posturing before the American people and offering "deals" that they know have no chance of being accepted.

... it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

From the article above:

"Next week, we will authorize a three month temporary debt limit increase to give the Senate and House time to pass a budget," House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said.

Obviously, if it comes from Eric Cantor, you know its bad.

The Tea Party keeps screwing the American Middle Class.

Salud

I want an unconditional raise in the debt ceiling. I want it now.

Playing with our creditors is a bad way to run a country. It sets a tone that this country can't meet its obligations on money that has already been loaned to us on "invoices" that have already been cleared by Congress. It takes two to tango, righties, and Congress tells the president which bills he can pay. The debt ceiling is on previous bills that are coming due for payment. It is not on new spending. You righties do get that, right?

Just say no.

Then what, Dimwit Republicans?

Barack Obama said:

I want an unconditional raise in the debt ceiling. I want it now.

OK Mr. President will get right on that; and sir hold your breathe will you wait please.

signed

GOP HOR

Speaking of budgets, its appears that Obama will submit his budget late for the forth time.

Washington has run amok.

ozzieyo1-7277359

All the President has to do is come to the table with meaningful cuts

He has.

4.2 Trillion worth.

My god, man. Don't you know how to use the internet to find information?

Your comment = EPIC FAIL.

Salud

KC_NC

We screwed up when we shrugged off the 2010 mid-terms - we can't make that mistake again.

I am with you 100%; let us never forget 2010.

I'm with STLMIke. They didn't demand spending cuts - all they want is a budget. Maybe this time they'll be serious about negotiating a budget, but if their idea of a budget is to propose Ryan's plan again then I'll jump on your bandwagon of indignation.

Obama needs to submit a budget that has some proposed spending cuts because we promised cuts will be needed to go along with a tax increase on the wealthy. He should start with defense cuts by proposing the closing of some military bases overseas. And because Texas repubs are azzholes, close some of their's as well. We are not the world's policemen and we should stop subsidizing the Texas economy so they can see what secession really means.

When the negotiation process begins, let the repubs propose cuts/changes to SS and Medicare. Maybe some will make sense, probably some will not. But if we don't start to do something in the next 3 months that the repubs are handing to us, then shame on us. I think its reasonable.

and we get the news media on the case again..

FACT: There will be no default, a default means you cannot pay your debt...

FACT: The Gvmnt brings in enough money every mth to pay our debt + some.,,

What is the point of a debt limit, when once you reach it, you just move the goal posts. I wonder what Mastercard, or Visa would say to me if I reached my limit I called them and said.. HEY I need you to move my limit up another 10k, even though im only paying the minimum payments right now.

When the President negotiated the tax plan in December and moved the sequester two months later he was brilliant, and now when the House asks for three months to get a budget there is a problem.

These same people who want it now have had no problems with the Senate not passing a budget for three years.

It is your right to support the President, but it is your obligation as a citizen of this country to look out for what is best for this country and not having a budget in three years is bad for everybody.

All these obstructionist charges against the House GOP, because they are requesting the Senate finally pass a budget to increase the credit? Hilarious.

All these charges of kicking the can down the road, while calling on a no strings attached raise that will truly kick the can down the road? Hilarious.

I honestly am ashamed that liberals are against good budgetary, and legally required, practices. All in the name of politics. They know their spending habits are shameful, and attempt to hide it by never having it on paper.

Can one liberal on this site give ONE good reason the Senate shouldn't need to pass a budget as legally required? Remember, the filibuster does not apply to the budget.

Stop spending our tax dollars on foreign companies, illegal immigrants, etc. Stop tacking on extra expenses to the Hurricane Sandy bill. Eliminate writeoffs for corporations and block businesses that hide their profits overseas. Stop allowing lobbyists to have access to the politicians.

Stop spending money we don't have!

There are those of you that would b**ch and moan at anything the House did that was not doing EVERYTHING that the Dem Senate mandates. Compromise is not doing everything the other side wants. Compromise is BOTH sides giving to meet somewhere in the middle. This is actually fair. They are extending the debt ceiling to the time when both houses are supposed to present and pass a budget. I do believe it has been over 1600 days since Harry Reid presented a budget for a vote. They are constitutionally required to present a budget. They are not doing their jobs. The House HAS presented budgets and voted on them. To refuse to pay members or either house for failing to do their jobs is perfectly reasonable. We should not be paying them for what they are failing to do. They are breaking the law by not passing a budget. It is time for Reid and his cronies to put up or shut up. No long-term increase in the debt ceiling UNTIL a budget is presented. No more uncontrolled spending - by either party.

Jeremy,

Congress already wrote and mailed the checks to our creditors and the creditors have deposited the checks and are now waiting for the check to clear so they can pay their employees and creditors. To not pay is to default causing economic distress around the world.

So it is ok with you that companies may go bankrupt or not be able to pay their employees on time because our Federal Government cannot pay all its bills.

The GOP is now realizing that they lost the last election and most voters aren't wanting to buy what they're selling, so they need to really pick their battles or take even more hits on favorability ratings.

The GOP knows it cannot fight over debt ceilings, entitlements, taxes, gun control, same sex marriage equality, women's health issues, and the many other pet issues from their base and biggest supporters without embodying the very kind of total obstructionism that voters explicitly do not want.

My bet is that they will fight the assault weapons ban as their top priority since they fear the backlash from the NRA and the "grass roots" organizations that will take them down in the next primaries. To devote all their energies to that, everything else except maybe one or two other issues will have to be put on the back burner. The raw numbers are not in their favor, so this will be a drawn out and very expensive push to change the tide of the majority of voters wanting some gun controls and those that want none at all. Any GOP seat that loses the NRA's backing is a lost primary seat and jeopardizes that seat being filled by a Republican and in keeping a House majority.

The Democrats should take advantage of this and push hard on all the other issues that are being put on the back burner, both to make progress on progressive reforms and to impact and divert the GOP's efforts to stall an assault weapons ban and other legislation out of the Senate and with the support of the White House.

Seeking - "look at the photo of the good old boys walking down the stairs. Oh yeah! The GOP in all it's full regala!"

Oh, come on, Seeking - Boehner's wearing a green tie and Cantor is almost sort of smiling for a change - how much more diversity could we realistically expect? :)

The house can say whatever they want and pass whatever they want, just like the bills they pass once a month repealing the health-care act, it means nothing, it goes nowhere, it does not become law if the senate don't pass it and the president does not sign it. You think these guys are going to pass a bill, that deprives them of their pay, I won't hold my breath. Republicans in the house threatening to cut off their own income, unless the senate punishes the old, sick, poor, and middle class while protecting defense contractors, oil companies, health insurers, and pharmaceuticals is more political suicide from the party that has now set a new standard of political ineptitude. Legislators threatening themselves with cutting off their own source of income reminds me Cleavon Little taking himself hostage in front of a town full of idiots in the movie Blazing Saddles, ha I guess Mel Brooks is now a GOP strategist.

I think most senators are wealthy enough to pass this and then stall until house republicans find out what it is like for an average American to go without a paycheck, I wish I was the Senate majority leader, I would pass their bill and then starve their stupid asses. I would not let up until they begged for an unemployment check, or food assistance, or needed medicaid for their families health-care needs. They threaten themselves with no paycheck unless more cuts are made to the poor, old and sick of this nation, I would pass their bill, and then shove it so far up their asses their eyes would bulge.

Joanne said: how much more diversity could we realistically expect? :)

None until minorities and women figure out that voting with your preconceived ideas of a party or your vagina is not a proper way to vote in your representatives.

Also, don't forget the 14th Amendment. A default on the debt is unconstitutional. Since each member of Congress took an oath to uphold the Constitution, voting or stonewalling to purposely cause a default would be legitimate grounds for impeachment of those members.

JoAnne - yep and that's about all the diversity we'll get, isn't it? I see the green from his tie slowly creeping onto Boehner's face! Yep - it's coming!

mike-464493 - the Congressional oaths mean nothing to Republicans and 7 Democrats who pledged an oath to Grover Norquist. Again, they should ALL be tried for treason!

ozzieyo1-7277359 - your crudeness and stupidity are only overshadowed by your eagerness to post it for all to see. My guess is you wonder why no woman of any value will even look at you - try reading your disgusting post and you'll know why!

We don't discuss your teeny tiny miniscule little penis so stop with the vagina nonsense!

House Republicans are backing away from their threat to plunge the United States into a catastrophic budget default and will instead pursue the somewhat less reckless strategy of passing a three-month increase in the debt limit.

According to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), the bill will also contain a provision cutting off congressional pay unless both houses meet a particular milestone: "If the Senate or House fails to pass a budget in that time, members of Congress will not be paid by the American people for failing to do their job. No budget, no pay."

Before Cantor gets too excited about this plan, however, he may want to familiarize himself with the Twenty-Seventh Amendment to the Constitution:

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

There is no election between now and three-months from now, so no law that would cut off congressional pay can take effect then. The Constitution is very clear on this point. Indeed, Republicans should have discovered this fact when House members read the Constitution aloud on the House floor last Tuesday.

Once again the Republicans show their lack of understanding of the constitution.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/278007-house-gop-aims-to-tie-senate-action-on-budget-to-debt-limit-increase#ixzz2ILoxZCMn

Just say no.

Then what, Dimwit Republicans?

__________________________________

AM: Then Harry Reid and the Senate Dems rightly get the blame for the default and govt shutdown if they don't pass the bill. And if the Senate does pass the bill (LMAO, yeah, right, the Senate PASSING a bill.) and Barry vetoes it, he rightly gets the blame for the default and govt shutdown.

Gee, putting the spendthrift federal govt on a short leash allowance. What a great idea.

mike-464493

Also, don't forget the 14th Amendment. A default on the debt is unconstitutional. Since each member of Congress took an oath to uphold the Constitution, voting or stonewalling to purposely cause a default would be legitimate grounds for impeachment of those members.

and that will never happen. We bring in enough money in taxes every mth to pay off the debt. There might be other services that will not be paid, but thats not covered in the 14th.

It is factual, and even a libbie cannot argue with it, that we bring in enough money to service the DEBT of the country, and that is what the 14th is about. the 14th does not cover every dollar the Gvmnt spends.

"There was serious displeasure and concern within the financial services community over the way Republicans handled the debt ceiling issue in 2011," said one business advocate tied into Republican politics. "It was the financial community that helped deliver the resources for a Republican takeover in 2010 and now House Republicans are at risk of jeopardizing their credibility with their free market allies."

======

In other words....House GOP, don't forget to zip our pants when your done.

Why is it, that whenever the Republicans have a little power but are not in control, they try to block any bit of legislation that might help the Country as a whole. They try to tie up the administration with technicalities and nonsense (Clinton). Or in the case of Obama, hijack the economy for his willingness to pay their bills.

Looks like the new New York gun/magazine law forgot to exempt the police.. could make cops less able to do their jobs... quoting Pelosi "you have to pass the laws before you can see what is in them"

dailycaller.com/2013/01/17/cuomos-new-gun-law-does-not-exempt-new-york-cops-could-prevent-police-from-responding-to-school-shootings/

How unreasonable of the House to require the Senate to do their job. The first step toward any fiscal responsibility has to be an actual budget. If Obama feels that is an unreasonable request, then he can veto the bill and let the nation default. This nation can no longer afford a no limits credit card, and if Obama and the Democrats are serious about the fiscal health of this country, it is time to show it. Either put up or shut up, this is a good move by Republicans. It is not as if the markets or credit reporting agencies were just going to stay the course with this country if we simply increased our debt limit with no long term solution to bring it under control. The fact is the world see's the debt being amassed by the United States as unsustainable, it is only in Washington where they are clueless.

What I'm saying has been said and continuously ignored. The Republicans took over witht the disgraced duo, Bush and Cheney and wiped out the surplus and created a debt in the trillions that is still growing as a result. This is important to remember because regardless of any ideology one favors, this is important because the current GOP will do it again. This is not your daddy's Republican party.

We have not had a responsible political party in office since Eisenhower. As things stand, the so-called liberals are further right than Reagan and the GOP is so far right they are disfunctional.

A sensible look at our history will show that in times like these, the only thing that has worked to get us back in step has been government spending. Roosevelt and Eisenhower both did that and it saved our ass. We need to get our economy going and not simply continue to funnle all the welath upwards. Only a solid middle class can save us.

As things actually are, we are not just 16 trillion in debt, we have an additional 75 trillion that we are commited to. What that really means is that our debt is unpayable. So, besides getting our economy working so we can stay afloat, we need to seriously consider DEBT FORGIVENESS on a grand scale. I know that sounds bad as hell but if we don't, in the long term we will become the Neo Third World wherein we will owe everything and own nothing. We will be further tied to the wheel of industry in a way that will be defacto slavery.

MARK THESE WORDS

for all of you who continually complain about Obama not submitting a budget and for Congress not passing a budget, this is for you. The only outstanding budget is 2013.

source Wikipedia

2014- due to be submitted by Feb 2013

2013 US federal budget- submitted by Obama in Feb 2012, not yet passed

2012- US federal budget- submitted by Obama in Feb 2011, passed November 8 2011 and December 23, 2011

2011- US federal budget- submitted by Obama in Feb 2010, passed April 2010

2010 US federal budget- submitted by Obama in Feb 2009, passed in July 2009

2009 US Federal Budget was submitted by Bush in Feb 2008, passed unknown

Let's see, the GOP party which preaches about the economic perils of uncertainty, once again sets about to purposely create more economic uncertainty peril. The term stupid fools comes to mind as a description of republican legislators.

FR mentioned that the public has lowered its expectations. Seems to me the reason for lowered expectations has been quite visible recently; the GOPers and the fiscal cliff, the GOPers dragging their feet on Hurricane Sandy relief; the GOPers threatening to default on the debt they built so willingly; and now, the GOPers say, let's just kick this can of debt-ceiling albatross that's hanging around our necks down the road a few months and hope no one notices that once again, the GOPers are completely inept, inane drones.

I guess now that "make Obama a one term President" didn't work, the strategy is to keep this economy limping along until 2016 by inhibiting consumer/industry confidence. The GOTea are a bunch of traitorous fascists.

I like the part where they don't get paid.

Yeah Joe they are political geniuses, they just lost the elections to an electorate that does not want to be cut any further while the defense department, and subsidies for the most profitable corporations on the planet are left unscathed. So their plan is to threaten the very population that gives them the lowest approval rating ever recorded with destruction of the US credit rating if they do not accept something like the Ryan plan which they already cleary rejected. Then they expect to show how serious they are about forcing cuts on the old, sick and poor by not collecting their outrageous taxpayer funded pay and benefits. Ha we will see how that works out for them. The only way it could work for them is if they propose some super serious deep cuts to the thngs they hold most sacred and have never been willing to cut.

Before Cantor gets too excited about this plan, however, he may want to familiarize himself with the Twenty-Seventh Amendment to the Constitution:

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

There is no election between now and three-months from now, so no law that would cut off congressional pay can take effect then. The Constitution is very clear on this point. Indeed, Republicans should have discovered this fact when House members read the Constitution aloud on the House floor last Tuesday.

Once again the Republicans show their lack of understanding of the constitution.

____________________________

Dennis: The purpose of this amendment was to prevent Congress from raising their own salaries during their current term in office. The theory is that they would raise the next Congresses salaries and then have to face the voters for re-election. The theory is nice, but, fatally flawed. NY has a similar provision. In NY, the legislature just passes the raises in a lame duck session after the election. By the time the next election comes around two years later the voters have forgotten about it.

Also, the 27th only applies to "varying the compensation". Cantor could propose a bill leaving the compensation unchanged, but, withholding all the paychecks until a budget is passed. That's how the Republican's (Jackoff??) in NY dealt with chronic late budgets. It had some success though not total success.

ozzieyo1-7277359

None until minorities and women figure out that voting with your preconceived ideas of a party or your vagina is not a proper way to vote in your representatives.

I have yet to meet a woman who has a preconceived idea of her vagina. Better check out that lady you are with, there might be a banana in her pocket.

look in the mirror!

thetotas, President Obama has submitted a budget on time every year since taking office. Pay attention.

Joe,

What don't you understand about "cut off Congressional pay"?

The pay increases have already been stopped.

(1/1/2013) - In the fiscal cliff deal the Senate added a last-minute addition to the bill that would prevent a $900 pay raise for members of Congress from taking effect in March.

TO: ozzieyo1-7277359 who wrote:

"... The GOP are trying to get the President to the table to negoitiate spending cuts ... and all you can do is cry about there tactics. All the President has to do is come to the table with meaningful cuts ..."

You mean, the way Republicans screamed like babies over "tactics" used to enact Obamacare?

"Meaningful cuts" such as my Social Security and Medicare that Republicans are always trying to steal from us after we paid for these all our working lives?

I have YET to see Republicans conduct themselves in any kind of reasonable manner since President Obama has been in office, no need for me to expect to see Republicans make any sudden changes in their behavior.

I just love how the RWNJ posters go after the dispossessed people losing their homes through no fault of their own due to the crummy economy brought on by the RWNJ bankers, Wall Street, etc. BUT the country will go into default because of the GNOP and baggers with their inaction, and that is perfectly fine.

The GOP wants cuts to spending? Start with ALL the corporate welfare in this country from Wal-Mart workers making so little money they have to apply for (and they qualify for) Medicaid to the Oil Companies getting Billions of $ in "incentives" to the 50% of the corporations that not only send our jobs off shore, but pay NO taxes.

Then they can start on the military after we finish the last of G.W. Bush's unfunded wars. We don't need to outspend the world in defense spending. Start having the countries that benefit from our military presence cover the cost plus some. (South Korea, Japan, etc.)

And they can go back to change the laws that allow the corporations and the rich to shelter their money in off shore accounts. They can also change the laws allowing companies to off shore our manufacturing jobs. Start charging tariffs again for these companies to bring their products back into the U.S.

Then the RWNJ congress can start on their "Base" and actually raise the taxes on the wealthy to around, oh, I don't know, maybe the level it was under that outstanding Republican Eisenhower?

Then and only then can they work on entitlement reform, after of course they returned the 2.7 trillion dollars it owes Social Security (in gold preferably) so it can be deposited in interest bearing accounts.

If the RWNJ component wants to get stupid about this then the rest (and majority) of Americans should get just as stupid as they are.

reya

for all of you who continually complain about Obama not submitting a budget and for Congress not passing a budget, this is for you

Thank you reya for showing the facts for all the RW bloggers to see.

I'm sure from this point forward, they will never bring it up again.

LMFAO.

Salud

blackcatwhitecat

Better check out that lady you are with, there might be a banana in her pocket.

bcwc, Is that anyway to talk about his mommy?

Salud

American Girl-724855

"Meaningful cuts" such as my Social Security and Medicare that Republicans are always trying to steal from us after we paid for these all our working lives?

Leave it to the Teapartypoopers to take from the poor and middle class and give it to the rich.

Salud

I find it hilarious that the Republicans wants to default on the debt. Let's see, they take out trillions in loans and enrich themselves and friends and then they want to fire government employees or lower their wages and benefits while taking pay raises for themselves and tax cuts for their wealthy supporters. Then, when the bill comes due, they talk about walking away from paying. Hmmm, sounds familiar. Oh yeah, businesses do it all the time and then file bankruptcy.

So if your old, sick, and poor the house republicans want to cut what little you have, even though you have paid in for a lifetime, and if you don't agree they will show you! They will destroy the financial system and business community they propose to support, and they will not collect their $174,000 in pay, or their Cadillac health care, or their full pension for five years service at a part time job. Ha that sounds like a pretty scary threat. Geez these guys are damn stupid.

Fiscal Hawks who do not believe in paying bills?....How does that work?

Barack_Obama

Join me and the Communist Party USA as we push for more government control.

There are not enough Commies to storm the Bastille town jail in Paris ... Texas.

This is pure sadism.

The Party of No is now trying to strangle and destroy the American economy....except with more painful slowness now.

Pathetic.

do your job Congress!!! If you don't want to pass a budget then say so... stop jerking the taxpayers and the voters around. The cost of interests on the debt is already incredible... this way we know which states we should offer up to sell off... What a bunch of irresponsible kids..

Dennis, your #1.44 proves once again that the GOPers who claim to be strict Constitutionalists do not have a clue what is actually in it. Guess Cantor hopes the public doesn't know that 27th Amendment overrides his snake-oil trick.

If memory serves me, Eric Cantor passed his legislation in the House which said that if the Senate didn't pass the House's omnibus spending bill, the House's would automatically become law. When it was pointed out to Cantor that it doesn't work that way and the Constitution clearly says it doesn't, he looked like a deer caught in the headlights, stammered and then said it was just a symbolic vote.

Jody,

The White House has informed House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) that it will miss the legal deadline for sending a budget to Congress.

Acting Budget Director Jeff Zients told Ryan in a letter delivered Friday that the budget will not be delivered by Feb. 4, as required by law.

Zients blamed the delay on the late passage of the “fiscal cliff” deal, and wrote that the administration is “working diligently on our budget request.”

Under the law, President Obama must submit a budget by the first Monday in February, but he has met the deadline only once. The annual budget submission is supposed to start a congressional budgeting process, but that has also broken down. The Senate last passed a budget resolution in 2009.

thehill.com

This would seem to dash any hope that the REpublicans learned something from their thrashing at the polls last election.

Gop is like rotten meat, it needs to be thrown out.

"No budget, no pay"? The word "retroactive" is missing in that statement.

A wholelotta saber-rattling - we certainly need a budget but not sure holding the debt ceiling hostage is the best way to force the issue. Certainly gets people's attention, though! Yikes.

BCWC, don't bogart that fiscal spleef, my friend.

Joe,

What don't you understand about "cut off Congressional pay"?

The pay increases have already been stopped.

______________________________

Dennis: Are you REALLY that thick??

I was saying there is a way to put some financial burden on Congress that would pass muster with the 27th if they don't pass a budget: Leave their compensation at the same amount and just don't hand out the paychecks until after they pass the budget.

Duh.

Lance Armstrong takes on new title of "biggest liar in America" passing both (former #1) Tiger Woods and (former # 2) Bill Clinton...

Joe,

Again that violates the Twenty-Seventh Amendment to the Constitution. Withholding pay is the same as No budget, no pay.

TomasGrande

reya

for all of you who continually complain about Obama not submitting a budget and for Congress not passing a budget, this is for you

Thank you reya for showing the facts for all the RW bloggers to see.

I'm sure from this point forward, they will never bring it up again.

LMFAO.

Salud

It helps when you know the difference between a budget, and a continuing resolution.

By the way, Obama, of the 5 budget proposals he will have submitted, will have only had one proposal turned in on time. That was 2/1/2010, for the 2011 budget proposals.

Congress (which is made up of all the House of Representatives and Senate members) has passed a continuing resolution each year since 2009 to keep the government funded. However, It's been since 2009 that the Senate has passed it's own budget, as they are required to do so by law, thus the need for the continuing resolutions, which essentially have to keep the budget from 2009 going each year following.

Here's how the process works!

www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-does-the-us-federal-government-determine-spend.html

The president’s part of the budget process

By law, the president must submit a proposed federal budget to Congress in February of each year, for the next fiscal year that begins on October 1. The president assembles the budget based on recommendations from federal agencies and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

During the previous fall, federal agencies submit budget requests to OMB with detailed program costs. OMB sends revisions back to the agencies in a process called “passback” in November or December of every year. Agencies have a short time to appeal OMB’s decisions before the final president’s budget is completed and submitted to Congress by the February deadline.

OMB prepares the budget submission for Congress as well as explanatory materials and detailed appendices that are available to the public.

Congress considers the president’s budget

Congress receives the proposed budget and first passes a budget resolution, which is a framework outlining how members of Congress will make decisions about spending and taxes. The budget resolution is based on analysis done each year in March by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The budget resolution identifies levels of total revenue and spending, calculates any surplus or deficit and provides spending targets for both mandatory and discretionary spending.

Mandatory spending is set

After approving the budget resolution, the House and Senate may consider legislation to change the eligibility rules or participant funding levels for mandatory programs. Mandatory spending, sometimes called “direct spending,” includes mostly entitlement programs that are funded by eligibility rules or payment rules, authorized by permanent laws. Mandatory spending is not dependent on an annual appropriations bill. Congress may change the eligibility and participant funding levels at any time.

Discretionary spending included in appropriations bills

At the same time, Congress begins consideration of the annual appropriations bills for discretionary spending. Discretionary spending is divided among twelve subject areas with appropriations bills that fall under the jurisdiction of their respective House and Senate appropriations subcommittees:

• Agriculture

• Commerce, Justice and Science

• Defense

• Energy and Water

• Financial Services

• Homeland Security

• Interior and Environment

• Labor, Health and Education

• Legislative Branch

• Military Construction and Veterans Affairs

• State and Foreign Operations

• Transportation, Housing and Urban Development

Appropriations hearings and passage by Congress

The appropriations subcommittees begin hearings in April of each year and approve appropriations bills that pass the House and Senate on a rolling basis from May to September of every year. Both the House and Senate will pass their own versions of each bill, which will then be combined in a process called conference. In conference, leaders of the House and Senate negotiate and agree on a final version for every appropriations bill, which is then approved by each chamber.

Often, conference appropriations bills are combined into an omnibus appropriations bill that includes funding for many different agencies. Some years, Congress is unable to complete work by the October 1 deadline and will pass a continuing resolution that funds the government until Congress can approve a final appropriations bill for the next fiscal year.

The president signs the budget

Once a final appropriations bill passes both the House and the Senate, the bill is sent to the president for his signature. The president may veto the bill and send it back to Congress or sign it into law. After the president’s signature, federal agencies then execute spending in their respective programs.

The Office of Management and Budget, the General Accounting Office, congressional committees and agency personnel closely monitor the budget and spending to ensure programs comply with spending limits and use funds only for the purposes authorized by Congress.

For you visual types, here is where you can go to see the process.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/federal-budget-process/

@ TheDougler960608

This is no place for facts bucko!

Here ya go all you RW nobgobblers.

Courtesy of Wikipedia:

The President's budget request

Congressional consideration of the federal budget begins once the President of the United States submits a budget request, which is formulated over a period of months with the assistance of the Office of Management and Budget, the largest office within the Executive Office of the President. The budget request includes funding requests for all federal executive departments and independent agencies.

The President submits the budget request each year to Congress for the following fiscal year, as required by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. Current law (31 U.S.C. 1105(a))^[4] requires the President to submit a budget no earlier than the first Monday in January, and no later than the first Monday in February. Typically, Presidents submit budgets on the first Monday in February.

The President's budget request constitutes an extensive proposal of the administration's intended spending and revenue plans for the following fiscal year. The budget proposal includes volumes of supporting information intended to persuade Congress of the necessity and value of the budget provisions. In addition, each federal executive department and independent agency provides additional detail and supporting documentation to Congress on its own funding requests

Just like EVERY President since 1921 (See Budget and Accounting Act of 1921) President Obama has submitted a budget the same way.

Good Grief.

You would think with the internet and all the RW bloggers could put down the 72 ounce Mountain Dew and read it for themselves.

STOP SPREADING LIES ABOUT PRESIDENT OBAMA AND HIS BUDGETS!!!!!!!!!!

Salud

Dougler,

Once a final appropriations bill passes both the House and the Senate, the bill is sent to the president for his signature. The president may veto the bill and send it back to Congress or sign it into law. After the president’s signature, federal agencies then execute spending in their respective programs.

The President signs or vetoes the appropriations bill NOT the budget

Lil Michelle aka

Michelle Marsh of men's magazine fame such as Loaded, Perfect 10, Nuts, Maxim, Zoo and Playboy. Also known to us Brits as a Page 3 girl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_Three

http://www.iphonehdwallpaper.com/celebrity/michelle-marsh-iphone-hd-wallpaper/

@TheDougler960608

One often hears the phrase thrown out there "...the Senate is required by Law by pass a Budget...". I hear that, but at the same time, a budget hasn't been passed out of the Senate since 2009.

With all of that said and reading through what you posted, what exactly in there matches this phrase? I understand the process of HOW a budget is passed in both Chambers, reconciled, voted on again, and if passes moves on to the President...I get all that.

But my issue is, there has still been 3 years...and there has still been no budget passed out of the Senate. If the Senate is allegedly breaking the Law (which the comment clearly implies) what Branch of Government is supposed to act to deal with the other Branch allegedly breaking the Law?

If they are breaking the Law, why are 100 Senators not in jail? My ultimate point, either they are breaking the Law and some force needs to take action against the Chamber OR they are not breaking the Law and the talking point is incorrect.

It's one or the other.

Again that violates the Twenty-Seventh Amendment to the Constitution. Withholding pay is the same as No budget, no pay.

_____________________

Sorry Dennis, TEMPORARILY withholding paychecks does not vary the compensation as prohibited by the 27th. It only adjusts the timing of when the pay is received.

There has not been ONE commitee meeting in the HOUSE to go through the budget line by line and make recommendations. Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor wrote thier budget, which butchers everything but DEFENSE. It also INCREASES the National Deficit by $4 TRILLION. The President has rightly said he would veto that budget if it came to his desk.

Stlmike and Jesseaz et al,

This GOP ploy is a little less overt than most but it is the same old noise. A budget historically comes from the executive with the assistance of the OMB and reviewed by the CBO the House and Senate in committee review the proposal adding and subtracting reaching House and Senate versions. They go to reconciliation and submit an amended budget to the president. Other than the Gingrich and Boehner Houses the House has never approved a budget without any consideration of the Executives Budget and simply made their own. This is never done because the president has veto power and the Senate will never be able to accept such a budget. The entire goal is to create political stalemate. Boehner is simply engaging in more quarterly blackmail. Saying a budget must be passed in order to secure funding of debt already authorized is idiotic. The minority or bare majority of House Members who actually support the Ryan Budget want to place their desires before that of the American electorate the Senate and the president.

Americans overwhelmingly have disavowed themselves of the House budget plans and this is mere artifice in attempting to make the House majority supreme over all other agencies of governance. There has NEVER been a House budget known universally by an individuals name ie The Ryan Budget because the process is not designed to pit the executive against Congress it is designed to be a process of accommodation and negotiation. How does negotiation begin when the House presents a political treatise on the wonders of laissez faire capitalism long on rhetoric and devoid of actual plans for revenues or cuts other than vague generalities and a lot of trust us this works. There is not a single consideration given to the thousands of pages of data the executive has submitted to the OMB and CBO and instead we are given a proposal which would get a graduate student in economics an F.

No short term deals!

AlexM-3929653

Who is kicking the can down the road NOW?

Dumb bitch.

It's actually rather humorous to see all you libs throwing a tantrum because the house won't give your god a free ride with the money. I seriously hope none of you are accountants, because that means you would have to be actually responsible with money, which obviously none of you are.

============

Really? ...cause this is how you walk in a room and start your comments with the ultimate thought that people are going to take anything you say seriously..even if what you said there really was serious (which of course, it wasn't)

The republicon House passed a one year budget. Now they do not want to pay the money they have already voted to spend. A one year budget should have a one year budget ceiling.

This is more extortion from the party over country republicons.

@ BCWC, bingo!

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

Dougler,

Once a final appropriations bill passes both the House and the Senate, the bill is sent to the president for his signature. The president may veto the bill and send it back to Congress or sign it into law. After the president’s signature, federal agencies then execute spending in their respective programs.

The President signs or vetoes the appropriations bill NOT the budget

What are you arguing? The appropriations bill is created based upon the agreed budgetary needs, that both the Senate and House of Representative Budgetary Committees determine are necessary. The Appropriations bill is what the President signs to set forth the spending based on the budget. I don't understand what your beef is here.

maybe we should ban basketball...

espn.go.com/chicago/conversations/_/id/8854510/chicago-teen-tyrone-lawson-fatally-shot-high-school-basketball-game

All you libs trashing the GOP, again, answer one simple question, why are you not demanding that the Senate abide by US Laws and actually vote and pass a budget?

Thomsa Grande....I agree, the president has proposed budget, all though late as required by law. Yet none of his proposals have been passed. In fact, several of his budgets did not get even one Democratic vote. His budget proposals have been so far out of line in spending he can't even get his own party to vote for it. Why doesn't the President submit a realistic budget. And why are you not demanding that the Senate pass a budget to reconcile with a house passed budget to actually get siged into law rather than another continuing resolution?

Lil Michelle

@ BCWC, bingo!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beY80heT7fE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0iOB3rBkg4

As an independent, this sounds like a reasonable position from the Republicans. Hopefully this is the push the Senate needs to pass a budget so we can have an honest, open debate about our countries future.

Really? ...cause this is how you walk in a room and start your comments with the ultimate thought that people are going to take anything you say seriously..even if what you said there really was serious.

If our deficit was being taken seriously by either party, we wouldn't be where we are now. Everyone on these forums (including me) are nothing more than armchair politicians (or accountants in this case). I happen to be a software engineer irl, so all I have are comments and opinions, just like everyone else here.

My point is... we're here because our politicians put us here (both parties). But the liberals on these boards obviously think that their politicians are above reproach and can do no wrong. It's all the fault of the republicans. I left the republican party because they started acting like the democrat politicians do today, and I'm not the only party member to leave. The democrat politicians are going to continue to pull their crap because their blind followers (i.e. lemmings) give them free rein to do what ever they want.

All I see from the republicans here is trying to force the democrats and president to toe the line.

The day I come to these forums and actually see one of the main liberal posters actually call out a politician in the democrat party, I'll mark it on my calendar.

In the mean time, have fun misguiding the blame, it just shows how ignorant the posters are.

TO: Forrest Grump who wrote:

"...Legislators threatening themselves with cutting off their own source of income reminds me Cleavon Little taking himself hostage in front of a town full of idiots in the movie Blazing Saddles, ha I guess Mel Brooks is now a GOP strategist..."

lol

Allen - Omaha

@TheDougler960608

One often hears the phrase thrown out there "...the Senate is required by Law by pass a Budget...". I hear that, but at the same time, a budget hasn't been passed out of the Senate since 2009.

With all of that said and reading through what you posted, what exactly in there matches this phrase? I understand the process of HOW a budget is passed in both Chambers, reconciled, voted on again, and if passes moves on to the President...I get all that.

But my issue is, there has still been 3 years...and there has still been no budget passed out of the Senate. If the Senate is allegedly breaking the Law (which the comment clearly implies) what Branch of Government is supposed to act to deal with the other Branch allegedly breaking the Law?

If they are breaking the Law, why are 100 Senators not in jail? My ultimate point, either they are breaking the Law and some force needs to take action against the Chamber OR they are not breaking the Law and the talking point is incorrect.

It's one or the other.

Perhaps it was a misstatement on my part to say that the Senate is required by law to pass a budget.

The President is required by law to pass a budget however. Every year Obama has done so, however only once has he done it on time. That said, that argument is nit picking, as the only one that was really late was his very first one, which it's generally accepted to be late (98 days late for Obama). He had one on time, and two others were 7 days late each, and this years budget from the President is expected to be late.

However, by the Senate not passing their own budgets, there is nothing for the Budgetary committees of both the House and Senate to reconcile, thus they have to use Continuing Resolutions.

A continuing resolution is a type of appropriations legislation used by the United States Congress to fund government agencies if a formal appropriations bill has not been signed into law by the end of the Congressional fiscal year. The legislation takes the form of a joint resolution, and provides funding for existing federal programs at current levels.

Joe,

Ok you may be correct but if they don’t pass a budget for another 3 years then their pay will be held for all that time allowing some of their families to go on Government assistance if they would even be eligible which would carry over to a new congress.

That would be cruel … not passing a budget puts no real hardship on anyone.

AlexM,

I mostly agree with your post in 1.103, but I think the problem is the voters. We say we want DC to get a handle on the deficit, but the reality is we vote for whoever says they will give us the most for free. Basically, we tell the politicians to lie to us.

Until the majority of people are willing to vote for people that will cut the programs they benefit from, things will not get better. (and, yes, this is how I vote...but I'm not in the majority yet :-))

Dougler,

The President is required to submit a budget … not pass a budget

Presidents cannot pass anything

A budget historically comes from the executive with the assistance of the OMB and reviewed by the CBO the House and Senate in committee review the proposal adding and subtracting reaching House and Senate versions. They go to reconciliation and submit an amended budget to the president. Other than the Gingrich and Boehner Houses the House has never approved a budget without any consideration of the Executives Budget and simply made their own.

Jim Hayes... I'm very well aware of how the budget process works. So again, I ask you, why won't the Senate pass its budget or ammend the house budget and send the two differing bills to reconcilliation. The senate as only voted no on Obama's budget, no ammendments proposed, no new budget proposed. The Senate will not vote on the house passed budgets (Reid won't even bring the house passed budget to the floor to propose ammendments to it!!!) So by your own post on how the budget process works, it is the Senate that is not participating in this process.

Mike #'s

Also, don't forget the 14th Amendment. A default on the debt is unconstitutional. Since each member of Congress took an oath to uphold the Constitution, voting or stonewalling to purposely cause a default would be legitimate grounds for impeachment of those members.

7/9/1868

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

This part of the 14 Amendment has to do with debt of the Civil War.

Sorry about the delay.

Until the majority of people are willing to vote for people that will cut the programs they benefit from, things will not get better.

Definitely agree, and that's how I vote also. I'm already pissed about the corporate tax cuts that obama pushed through, and the pork that was in the sandy bill (from both parties). The free rides need to end. End for everyone, including defense, corporations, welfare, farms, absolutely everyone. Medicare and SSI need to be left alone since we all (those of us earning a living anyways) put money into that involuntarily. Keep after the fraud in both and kick the drug addicts off SSI, it's for retirement.

@BCWC -- my idol!

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

Dougler,

The President is required to submit a budget … not pass a budget

Presidents cannot pass anything

I never said anywhere that the President "Passes" anything. The only reference I made to anyone "passing" anything was the fact that the Congress, has passed Continuing Resolutions.

Ahh, I see what you're looking at. I didn't mean for the President to "pass" a budget like the Congress would. I meant sending it to congress. My mistake in wording, but the overall concept is unchanged.

TO: mike-464493 who wrote:

"Also, don't forget the 14th Amendment. A default on the debt is unconstitutional. Since each member of Congress took an oath to uphold the Constitution, voting or stonewalling to purposely cause a default would be legitimate grounds for impeachment of those members."

The United States Constitution does not apply to Republicans, just everybody else.

The House Republicans, especially elements of the Tea Party, can now taste the shoe in their mouths, right? They say it's munchy and tastes like their own! Perhaps in three months they will have digested one shoe and go for their other foot. At least they seem to be good at something, putting their feet in their mouths--time after time after time after...!

....... a bit of history of The Debt Ceiling? How did it all start? Please visit the following website -

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/more-on-the-history-of-the-debt-ceiling/

republicans! These spending Bills were voted through Congress by republicans and Democrats for generations. Now you don't want to pay for them? Why didn't you vote them down decades ago? What a sicko party. i

I would like to see the republican party dead and buried once and for all. Americans! If this doesn't show you the republicans don't represent any of you I don't know what will get through your thick skulls!

House Republicans want the 90 days so they can try and find a way to make the public believe that it's all the Democrat's fault.

no offense, but this is a virtual kool aid stand here

".. But what do you expect from a bunch of @!$%#ing mental idiots."

Look, you- leave the religious right out of this.

Presidents cannot pass anything"

I don't know, there, Buckeye- GWB sure passed his responsibilities on to that Dick (guy).

No other developed nation has a debt ceiling. This is a purely recurring symbolic vote to make people feel good by voting against it.

The trouble is it’s suicidal if you should happen to miscalculate and have all kinds of people voting against it as a symbolic vote and turn out to be a majority. Because if the United States defaults on its sovereign debt, the markets will be — well, it will be suicidal.

... additional info on the history of the debt ceiling on another website:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/why-do-we-even-have-a-debt-ceiling-law/

There is a chart of how the debt limit has increased over the years since 1917 and most dramatic increases started in 1981 - Reagan?

.

Before you even rush to judgment, the first part of the post about its being suicidal is uttered by a conservative hero of yours.

TO: AlexM-3929653 who wrote:

"...Dumb bitch... The reason the republican party is so small right now is because it's ex-party members started to hold it's politicians responsible for their actions..."

Well, it's about time!

When will Republicans finally deal with the whole Bush/Cheney thing?

And watch your mouth!

Well, this is a step in the right direction, but it's clearly just kicking the can down the road one more time.

Still, the Republicans have painted themselves into a corner and these incremental steps seem to be all they're politically able to do right now. It's not clear when, if ever, that will change.

It is clear to me that the messages coming from President Obama have forced the Republicans to stop threatening a government default as a blackmail tactic. He now knows that they will indeed blink every time (as they should and must), so the tactic no longer has any chance of being effective. Everyone knows that particular gun is loaded with blanks.

When I see so many people on this thread passing on the misinformation about "Obama hasn't passed a budget in four years," or whatever, I'm reminded of so many of the Republican disasters of the last 12 years that were brought on by a failure to pay attention to correct information.

• All of the warnings about al Qaeda that were ignored by the Bush administration;
• All of the pre-war inspections in Iraq that concluded there were no WMDs or WMD programs;
• Ignoring the Pentagon planners who knew that we would not be greeted with roses and chocolates there;
• Mitt Romney and Karl Rove ignoring Nate Silver

Republican voters need to wake up and realize that their opinionmakers are feeding them bad facts, and as the above list shows, you don't get good outcomes when you work from bad facts. You guys lost this last election in good part because of that.

Want to start winning elections again? Here's a good first step: stop listening to the folks like Rush Limbaugh and pretty much all of Fox News who've been feeding you those bad facts.

Oh come on. Stop. The Republicans just blinked and we have people here saying "No Deal!" or "One year or nothing!"

Dealing with the long term debt IS very important, and requires both sides of the aisle to make compromises their bases are not going to like. Here is the reality: Obama is a center left president. The self described conservatives who post words like Marxist or socialist immediately reveal that they don't know what they are talking about, and the Move On types who want to claim him are deluding themselves.

Now is the time for the President and the Senate to offer a deal. A deal that addresses the long term sustainability of age related entitlements, where the long term spending fixes need to be made, but also, as needs to happen, include revenue increases. The House will balk, but it is vitally important that someone be the adult here. I am cautiously hopeful that Obama is that adult. Given the Teapublican make up of much of the House, ANY movement whatsoever is a vital opportunity, and the Republicans just extended a three month window from a suicidal showdown. Those who want to spit in the House's face are simply wanting to perpetuate the problem. Show a willingness to deal, and if the House goes back to their usual intransigence, it is on them.

Dougler,

From your post 1.98 and Re. your post 1.85

In 1.85 the last section of your copy and paste said "The president signs the budget"

However I agree with your clarification in 1.98 [The Appropriations bill is what the President signs to set forth the spending based on the budget.] Well said !

As a voter I dealt with the whole bush/cheney thing and didn't vote for him his second term. That's also why the numbers in the republican party have been dropping, because republicans are waking up.

And watch your mouth!

Wow, scolded over the interwebs by a flamin liberal.

Watch out for the cliff dodo

Well you can tell what liberals want, more borrowing and more spending. After all it is those mean Republicans that just won't give Obama all the money he wants to spend. So what if future generations get stuck with the bill. So what if Obama as a senator called raising the debt ceiling a failure of leadership and unpatriotic. So what if candidate Obama said he would cut our annual deficit in half by the end of his first term. Sure blame Bush, blame the Republicans, make a thousand excuses. But right now it is Obama in the Oval Office demanding more money to spend, and the Democrats haven't put forth a budget in over three years let alone a plan to actually address our fiscal crisis. Letting Obama leave after the end of his second term with over 20 trillion in national debt and no solid debt reduction in place to address it, is simply a failure of leadership and unpatriotic.

Lil Michelle

no offense, but this is a virtual kool aid stand here.

Make mine with vodka.

Salud

The person now posting as "Barack_Obama" is a serial reregister who is banned every day, only to re register again and again. Report to newsvine.

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

Dougler,

From your post 1.98 and Re. your post 1.85

In 1.85 the last section of your copy and paste said “The president signs the budget”

However I agree with you clarification in 1.98 [The Appropriations bill is what the President signs to set forth the spending based on the budget.]

It was a copy and paste, so they weren't my words. But through the appropriations bill, the President is essentially signing off on the budget. It's really nothing more than terminology at this point.

TomasG- is that Gary Owen on your avatar??

If the House passes a 3 month extension, it goes to the Senate which is controlled by Democrats. If they don't pass the extension then it is the Democrats that have caused a default.

If both pass it and it goes to the President , he'll have to sign it or it will be he who is causing the default.

Democrats are boxed in on this one, reject any extension and they cause the default.

Dougler,

Again I agree but too many believe that a budget [itself] is law … it is not

Rick,

Since you want the spending halted then why don't you ask Congress to deal with the debt as part of each and every spending bill rather than after they have passed the spending when we hit the debt limit ?

Now it is ass-backward.

Since the debt ceiling has little or nothing to do with debt reduction the house needs to up the limit and then work on debt reduction, my suggestion would be to cut the Military budget by 20% as starters and then start cutting tax loopholes from those that need it least. Then and only then do we talk about entitlements. Read it before, but I agree, President Obama, please veto any bill that crosses your desk that isn't a year at least.

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

Dougler,

Again I agree but too many believe that a budget [itself] is law … it is not

That wasn't really the over all point though. The point was that the Senate hasn't passed their own budgets to be reconciled with the House's budget, thus we've had a need for Continuing Resolutions, when we could have been smarter over the last 3-4 years and really gotten the deficit down.

My argument is not that the House's budget was good or bad over those years, but that the over all process wasn't being seen through, and still isn't, in it's intended manner.

In the immortal words of the Eagles song "Get Over It"

You like to bitch about the present and blame it on the past

I'd like to find your inner child and kick it's little ass

Get over it.

TO: AlexM-3929653 who wrote:

["... And watch your mouth!"]

Wow, scolded over the interwebs by a flamin liberal.

lol

Dougler,

Passing a budget does not guarantee less spending. Off budget bills can be passed that cause us to spend more than we take in like Bush 43 did with the war funding and Medicare Prescription drug plan

mike-464493

Also, don't forget the 14th Amendment. A default on the debt is unconstitutional. Since each member of Congress took an oath to uphold the Constitution, voting or stonewalling to purposely cause a default would be legitimate grounds for impeachment of those members.

Your view isn't accurate unless Congress passes a budget, which it hasn't since Hussein became President.

like Bush 43 did with the war funding and Medicare Prescription drug plan

Dennis, See #1.138 you are exactly what it was speaking of.

Sorry folks, but Obama brought these stipulations on himself by ducking out on spending cuts on the Fiscal cliff and then stating he wasn't going to negotiate with Boehner on spending cuts.

The right shoe on the left foot doesn't feel to good, does it?

Interesting discussion on continuing resolution versus budgt. But - if all we have are continuing resolutions, doesn't that minimize spending increases? I think a lack of budget is just fine for keeping spending modest (and we'll never cut spending - never have, never will, don't need to). We can shrink the national debt without spendinig cuts, just as we did from 1945 to 1980. We can even balance the budget without spending cuts, just as we did in the 1990s. Plus no one, not even a Republican House member, can identify any immediate cuts that are acceptable. I mean, saying cuts to entitlements sounds great - so what percentage should we cut off the social security checks? At that point, politicians swear that they will never cut a penny, and Republicans point at Obama and say "He cut $714 billion from Medicare" as though those cuts are horrific.

But although we can't cut spending, we can limit its growth, and that's what we are doing. And if government grows more slowly than the economy, guess what? Government shrinks as %GDP.

From the web:

Growth In Government Spending Under President Obama Slower Than During Bush, Reagan Administrations

Republicans have continually decried the Obama Administration’s “runaway spending” since he took office, blaming him for growing deficits and a mounting national debt. But a quick glance at the facts show that, compared to George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, Obama is actually embracing fiscal conservatism more than any other president in recent history, with the exception of fellow Democrat Bill Clinton

For all the talk you hear about Obama’s historic spree, government spending actually hasn’t increased so dramatically under this president. The stimulus was big, but it’s over. It’s been replaced by, if not austerity (which has struck our states and cities) then a hard correction to the center.

That’s likely a hard pill to swallow for Obama’s critics, who have spent years hammering his administration for record spending and fiscal irresponsibility. The Atlantic’s Derek Thompson put it best: “Going by federal expenditures…it would seem that if Obama’s a socialist, Ronald Reagan is Karl Marx with an ICBM.”

Talk,

I used a recent example. Bush wasn’t the first and won’t be the last President to sign bills into law that are not part of the budget. I probably should have used the Hurricane Sandy Flood Insurance bill but that was
a one-time, small bill.

Do you have a better example ??

GOP 75% of the people in this Country seek a four year extension of the debt limit, stop kicking our Country down the road - its not healthy !

I agree jan. And again, they are doing this purely as theater. It's not like they are saying - we will raise the debt ceiling if you agree to 10% cuts in defense, reducing social security checks by $100/month each, or any other specific actual cut. They are telling their voters and the Fox News audience "we have a spending problem, we need to cut spending" but they are terrified of having to actually identify any significant cuts (and no, defunding Big Bird is not that big a cut). So as a result, they aren't actually proposing anything that Obama could agree to. They couldn't even pass their own fiscal cliff plan B.

They are like kidnappers who can't agree on how to write a ransom note. They are holding the economy hostage and but they can't figure out what for.

Make it easy on America. Vote straight Democratic Party. California did that, we got Democratic majorities and a Democratic governor, and guess what? We raised taxes, held down spending, and now we're running a surplus. Nation - you can do this too. All we need to do is get rid of Republican obstructionists.

You people are ridiculous, what is wrong with having the GOP tell the senate to pass a budget? Do you just keep spending money without knowing how much you have? Or how much you will need? And just a little reminder, the Democrats were in control of the purse strings from Jan of 2007 until they were kicked out, FOR SPENDING to much in November of 2010 what happened during that time? Gee just the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression, so I'd be careful of doing any chest pounding Liberals!

TO: Rick-3416939 who wrote:

"Well you can tell what liberals want, more borrowing and more spending..."

Wasn't that the exact same think Bush/Cheney wanted when they had the White House, and Republicans gave them every penny and more.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

TO: DB Akron who wrote:

"Sorry folks, but Obama brought these stipulations on himself by ducking out on spending cuts on the Fiscal cliff ..."

President Obama offered $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in revenue, and Republicans turned him down.

Since President Obama knows Republican are against everything President Obama is "for", he needs to start using reverse psychology on those nitwits.

TO: intelligent one-411352 who wrote:

"You people are ridiculous, what is wrong with having the GOP tell the senate to pass a budget?..."

Anytime Eric Cantor is smiling something is terribly wrong.

Seems like California voters were willing to pay for what they use. Tax and spend is much more fiscally sound that spend and borrow, don't you think, Republicans?

TO: gary-309869 who wrote:

"If the House passes a 3 month extension, it goes to the Senate which is controlled by Democrats. If they don't pass the extension then it is the Democrats that have caused a default..."

Republicans have been obstructing EVERYTHING for the past 4 years.

We know who is doing what, and it ain't the Democrats who are constantly spoiling for a fight, it's the Republicans!

Intelligent one - you're not!

Maybe some of you don't understand, debt is a bad thing. That means someone else owns you. So using obama's own standard and calling bush un-American for raising the debt, well, obama is nowthe most un-American potus ever!

As far as the socialist republic of California, they voted for a huge tax increase and now, tax revenue is down. Huh? What...? how can that be?? All of the big tax payers have moved out of state to avoid the higher tax rate. You know you would do the same thing.

Dennis - Do you have a better example ??

Yep, how about the Bush tax cuts. They were bad for America <sarc off>

Obama continued them under the guise that it would be bad for the economy to raise taxes at that point. Then, in 2012 blamed the whole problem on those very tax cuts that he continued. He bitched about the present and blamed it on the past but yet, continued that same "evil past". Then when the heat was on and he had no damned clue what to do, he decided to blame the evil rich. Everyone who wasn't in that category bought into it even though it didn't even put a dent in the problem. But Mr. Silvertongue convinced the LIV's (low information voters) that that would be the cure all. All the while letting the ridiculously conceived "tax break" by lowering the very thing that would supplement their retirement (you have heard of Social Security right) be his baby to get more money into their pockets. Well we will see what that 2% really means to the people that got used to it.

...NUTS!

Make All Education free to citizens.

Drop Entitlements (very very slowly)

Drop War on Drugs

Drop War on Guns

JEREMY YOUR FACTS ARE MORE LIKE FANTASY.

a simple math quiz for you. if we brought in enough money to pay all our debt each month then we would be running a deficet now would we.

thats tea party math. like the idea that raising the debt limit means more spending. the debt limit is to pay the bills you have done ran up. has nothing at all to do with spending

American Girl

How long have the Republicans been in power in the House?

Before you spout off about filibustering, how about the Dems compromise? That is a dirty word for them isn't it?

"House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said. "Furthermore, if the Senate or House fails to pass a budget in that time, members of Congress will not be paid by the American people for failing to do their job. No budget, no pay.""

This is interesting ..it should be made retroactive over the past years since congress, which includes both houses, has not passed a bill in years. I wonder how CAntor would enjoy that one..but bet on it...congress will always gets it money one way or the other no matter what Cantor claims. No one in congress has for years done their elected jobs...it has been all about their own parties and nothing else.

What a radical idea! Expecting Obama to do his job! This is definately the most racist, intollerant and ridiculous thing that the Republicans have ever asked for. Obama needs to be treated with kid gloves, as the first black President, and must have the leeway to do whatever he wishes without such issues like the constitution or rule of law to get in the way! It must be racist to ask for Obama to do his job and anyone who disagrees is a racist, period!

TO: intelligent one-411352 who wrote:

"American Girl How long have the Republicans been in power in the House?

Before you spout off about filibustering, how about the Dems compromise? That is a dirty word for them isn't it?"

It was Republicans who selected a bunch of wackos for the specific purpose of NOT compromising, THAT's what's wrong.

Republicans must believe that the American People didn't hear them demanding that the GOP not compromise, so no. No compromise! Republicans can raise the debt ceiling or not pay themselves.

I wonder what kind of puppies Mitch McConnell will have if he doesn't get his paycheck. Probably bassett hounds, cause that's what he kinda looks like, a bassett hound.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

TO: Dan M-1100664 who wrote:

"What a radical idea! Expecting Obama to do his job!..."

It's NOT the President's job to raise the debt limit. That job belongs to the Congress.

Quite interesting, so would he have been obstructing when he said:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.

Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities. Instead,
interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans–a debt tax that Washington doesn't want to talk
about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.

Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.

Sen. Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., (Senate – March 16, 2006)

This is a good move by the house. The Senate which is controlled by the Democrates have afiled to propose a budget as has the President yet they continue to ask for more spending. It is time for them to sh** or get off the pot. Why should the Republicans continue to take the heat for Obama's lack of leadrship of his own party. It is time he did some leading and get a real budget together and get it on the floor for debate. Where is the spending cut part of his "balanced approach " he got his tax increases. You Democrates who are pointing fingers at the GOP for obstruction should really take a step back and look at the whole picture. Remeber one thing. WE CAN NOT SPEND AND BORROW OUR WAY OUT OF DEBT !!!!. The buck has to stop or it won't be worht the paper it's printed on.

Hello is there anybody out there? The silence is deafening, interesting how the Liberals forgot exactly who there Messiah was when he actually showed up for work in the Senate.

Frisky haven't you heard, we are broke. This isn't going to cost us billions in interest it will save us billions, it is called interest. It never ceases to amaze me that someone from the left let alone the armpit of the state of IL doesn't understand economics.

Freeze their spending, don't negotiate a drop and don't negotiate on guns either. King Chavez in the whitehouse will get a dose of his own arrogance and might actually have to figure something out instead of following a bunch of bad advice from libby's special interest freeloaders. You want more money go get your weed legalized and tax the crap out of it. I might even donate to that cause and then Frisky in Chicago could get a job doing something she might be good at, growing.

How Ironic is this thread? The libbies actually touting the constitutionality of budgets.

The Irony of it is, Libbies only speak of the constitution when they feel threatened. Any other time the constitution is a burden to them.

Make the Idiots in D.C. do their jobs and put it in writing so everyone can see how wasteful spending is rampant in this administration.

I like the new plan. I like it so much that I might just be as bold as to say to the DNC, Check.

The fact that Fiesty doesn't see the beauty in the GOP's plan, makes it even more sweeter.

Oh, I'm still not repub. I'm just glad that they are finally showing some sign of getting my point of view about the whole "government financials". Let's see some key things here:

"We are going to pursue strategies that will obligate the Senate to finally join the House in confronting the government’s spending problem"

Sounds like a good idea...

"Furthermore, if the Senate or House fails to pass a budget in that time, members of Congress will not be paid by the American people for failing to do their job. No budget, no pay"

Now you're speaking my language.

That's right, if you don't do your damn job, you don't get paid!! That's Repubs and Dems. Wow, makes kinda a private sector sense now. Finally, the Repubs have found a way to common sense governing. Good for them.

Now here's something I never saw coming...

"Republicans have vocally criticized the Democratic-controlled Senate for failing to produce a budget in recent years, a mark of the upper chamber's unseriousness in the eyes of many conservatives. Democrats have used the two budgets authorized by House Republicans as a political cudgel against the GOP; the Senate's failure to pass a budget has been partially meant to escape similar political culpability."

Wait a second...was that just something that Repubs did that was reported unbiasedly on MSN? Are they actually writing that the Dems in the upper chamber have been neglecting their part of the budget and not doing their jobs? ON MSN?!?!?

They better hurry up and fix that before the president sees it and has their meal cards taken away...

American Girl ========== Nothing you said in your comment #1.152 changes the fact that if the House extends for 3 month and the Senate refuses to do so, default will be caused by the Democrats that control the Senate.

That's unassailable. You've just failed to focus on the relevant issue , i.e. , will there be a default or won't there.

Since Obama has said a default is unacceptable , then you must support a Senate vote for the extension, if the House sends one over. If that happens , the only thing that can cause a default is the Democrats in the Senate or the Democratic president.

I guess the 26% approval rating for the republican party in Congress may tell us something and finally get them to act? They voted for the bills that are now costing us $ so why vote for them or at least get them passed for generations and now not want to pay for them. Idiots! The God Owful party needs to be put out of its misery!

169 posts so far, sevearl posts asking the left to answer one question. Why is it a bad thing to require both houses of congress to finally work together and pass an agreeable budget? And yet, not one person from the left has even attepted to answer this question. Its simply ignored and then the GOP bashing follows.

Yup! Stop hiring the illegals so businesses and corporations can get cheap labor knowing that their employees are illegals! Greed does that republicans!

Answer! Because the God Owful Party can't agree to one d@m thing! They walk out or wait till the last minute to get things done! As a former republican I know about their workings and that is why I'm a former. Self centered, greedy , power hungry (now wanting to change the Electoral College power hungry!) I hate my former party! Driving us to ruin! That is why 74% now agree with me and only 26% agree with the republican't Do Nothings! Only 26% now have a favorable opinion of them!

Source: CNN

On Sunday, April 29, it will be exactly three years since the U.S. Senate passed a budget.

If you own or work for a small business that has a loan from a bank, I'm quite sure your business has a budget -- and a rather detailed budget at that. Every year around tax time, many American families sit down to fill out tax forms, estimate their income, and set spending priorities for the upcoming year. It's the responsible thing to do.

And yet, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid appears to believe it is not necessary for the Senate to fulfill its legal responsibility by debating and passing a budget to account for $3.8 trillion in federal spending next fiscal year, $15.6 trillion of debt and, according to figures produced by the Senate Budget Committee Republican staff, more than $65 trillion in additional unfunded liabilities.

STLmike,

It would be great if both sides couold work out an agreement in good faith, reflecting voter sentiment in the last election. The Republicans will not do that. Their attitude of "do everything that we want and no one gets hurt" is destructive to growth of the economy. They claimed during the election, that the business community needed long term stability so they would invest for long term growth. But now, the Republicans demonstrate that they don't care about the growth of the economy, all they care about is regaining their prescious power.

Answer is NO! GOP does not need 3 more months a a retreat or vacation from not doing their job. Take the 3 months after you do what we pay you to do.

To the LIVs ( Less Informed Voters ) and libs.

From the Governmemt accountability Office.

“While Congress and the administration have taken steps recently to improve the near-term outlook,” Dodaro said, “the comprehensive fiscal projections in the 2012 Financial Report make clear that our federal government’s long-term fiscal path remains unsustainable without further policy changes.” He pointed out that the oldest members of the baby-boom generation are already eligible for Social Security and Medicare benefits and that spending for these programs is projected to rise dramatically in the coming decades.

Obama do not want change the path, Obama is taking us to a total collapse, insolvency, like Greece if he don't stop spending the money we don't have and don't make changes to SS and Medicare. Obama is living in fantasy world where the money comes from the air. Of course Obama will blame the enemy the ones that are in the back of his bus, George Bush and the Republicans in Congress.

...isn't it the Senate (controlled by Democrat Sen. Harry Reid) who has not voted on the budgets passed by the House of Representatives and sent to them?
I'll make it easy for you, the answer is 'Yes' - it has been over 1350 days since the Senate has even adopted a budget. BTW - budget resolutions cannot be filibustered.

The democrats cannot face the fact that thier fiscal plans for America are NOT affordable - its not THEIR money they are wasting but OURS!

"Before you spout off about filibustering, how about the Dems compromise? That is a dirty word for them isn't it?"

intelligent One??? Pfffft, yeah right. If any repug dared to use the word "compromise" during President Obama's first term, they would've been kicked out of the party. However, after getting their a$$es handed to them in the last elections, now repugs are saying we have to compromise. Of course their idea of "compromise" is to bitch and whine about how unfair Obama is because he didn't give them everything they wanted on a silver plater.

This is stupid, present a budget for once and then you have a right to blame the other side. So far the democratic people in both houses have not presented one budget in the last two years, and while the president did present 5 budgets they were so heavy in new debts that his budgets could not even get one democratic vote. For once stop the posturing, pass a law that if a budget is not passed (and it must be a balance budget except in times of nationally declared war) then everyone from the president on down to the lowest members in both houses will be ineligible from running for office the next term. And maybe to show some responsibility for this mountain of debt that we are leaving our children we should also demand a 2% pay-down of the debt to be included with the balanced budget. Everything will face cuts, but it is better now then to face draconian cuts when we are in the same position as Greece and unable to pay our bills.

I can't see and wish the Norquist Behner's death..rott in hell you freaks..

Red states pay less in federal taxes but yet receive more in federal money then they put in. They also have some of the lowest wages in the country.

Go ahead neocons....Cut away.....Cut those programs your folks live off and depend on. Just make sure your state pays it's fair share of taxes so we can get a balanced budget.....The rest of us are tired of carrying your states. And oh by the way....No more pork for you or your state & should a stimulus bill come up.....refuse the money (you didn't the last time) so we can have a balanced budget.

The republican party bitches about how reckless the spending is, but yet always seems to have their hand out when it comes right down to it. The last two years of appropriations have shown us that.

Negative GOP Obstructionist...kicking the can down the road for three months will not do. Mr. President, do not accept this foolishness.

All these useless obstructionist are doing is playing foolish games!!

Steve,

Where the hell are you getting your facts from? I have looked up those numbers and you will see that the area's that get the heavy funding are also voting with a large majority for democrats. While I am not advocating either side (they both stink, just smell bad in a different way), I hate it when either side just makes up numbers or better yet twist them until they state something that is as far from the truth as they can get.

Did you guys see the statistics that just came out? There are more Republicans in prison then Democrats. Seems they are more willing to screw over anyone they can then Democrats are. Must be because they are anti social.

moshuluu

Negative GOP Obstructionist...kicking the can down the road for three months will not do. Mr. President, do not accept this foolishness.

HA HA HA what a bunch of bull....this prez. has spent us into oblivion and now it's "don't let them kick the can?"

ROFL....there are NO BUDGET CUTS WITH OBAMA...NONE.....ZERO....ZIPPO....NADA...just spend spend spend...all the GOP can do is figure out how to dismantle this idiot President.

justoneguy

moshuluu

Negative GOP Obstructionist...kicking the can down the road for three months will not do. Mr. President, do not accept this foolishness.

HA HA HA what a bunch of bull....this prez. has spent us into oblivion and now it's "don't let them kick the can?"

ROFL....there are NO BUDGET CUTS WITH OBAMA...NONE.....ZERO....ZIPPO....NADA...just spend spend spend...all the GOP can do is figure out how to dismantle this idiot President.

I realize that you like most Republicans seem to live under a rock or something, but President Obama has twice now put MAJOR cuts on the table and both time the House GOP (republicans) walked away. So now the President is saying screw them, I am going to get what I need done and to hell with the GOP obstructionist.

Brilliant move, Republicans.

Force the Senate to pass a budget of no pay. FINALLY, bringing some sanity back in the game. When Reid tries to block it, the Republicans can go to the American people and say, "SEE, they don't want any budgets so that they can spend recklessly without you knowing."

These liberals who talk about Obama's "major cuts" he offered....PLEASE....All he offers are phantom cuts 10 years down the road after he's out of office and some other president would have to deal with.

CUT SPENDING TODAY!!!! Not future cuts....TODAY!!!!

Paws,

Problem is that the “no pay” proposal is unconstitutional.

Budgets never control spending.

This President has agreed to more spending cuts than any president ever. $1.4T so far with another $1.2T that must be cut by March 1 or the sequester goes into effect.

Paws, How narrow minded and sick your reasoning. The spending has come over generations of Bills passed by republicans and Democrats. Farmers who make up 2% of the American work force get 14% of the entitlements. The Bills have been passed they are the law. How do you intend on making cuts? Foolish thought process. Typically republican!

Yep, how about the Bush tax cuts. ... Obama continued them under the guise that it would be bad for the economy to raise taxes at that point.

Yet another attempt to rewrite history. Those tax cuts were extended due to arm-twisting by the HR Republicans who wouldn't allow any extension in unemployment benefits without extending the tax cuts. Not extending unemployment definitely would have been bad for the faltering economy!

But that's OK. The economy is stronger now, the Republicans will take all blame for yet another useless grand stand on the debt ceiling and the 2014 elections, in which every HR seat will be up for election, are rapidly approaching. If Republicans are stupid enough to repeat their grandstanding on the debt ceiling then America will suffer but Republicans and the Republican party will suffer more.

Just one guy,

Please list the spending that Obama has made that sent us into Oblivion? The spending and entitlements were made decades ago and except for the Job Creation Bill his spending has been off set by already existing entitlements voted for by republican sand Democrats. How about bush's $4,000,000,000,000 spent on two lost wars and amounting to 1/4th of our debt?( 7250, body bags for nothing and I don't believe the BS that "Freedom isn't Free" to apply to Afghanistan and Iraq!) Were you speaking out about that? I don't remember reading any post to that effect????

Gotta love all the liberal banter... Clearly they all feel the politicians should have zero accoundtability... It also begs the observation on how on earth these same folks manage their personal finances... I won't offer my opinion, just wonder who is gonna clean up their personal mess - oh thats right, its the lawyers on TV yelling at you that they can eliminate all your debt... I understand now... Somebody else will pay for you. Same mentality here I guess.

FYI - Here are the National Debt figures for the last fiscal years in office for recent Presidents;

Reagan (1988) = $2.601 Trillion, an increase of $1.692 Trillion

Bush 1 (1992) = $4.002 Trillion, an increase of $1.401 Trillion

Clinton (2000) = $5.629 Trillion, an increase of $1.627 Trillion (about same increase as Reagan)

Bush 2 = (2008) = $9.986 Trillion, an increase of $4.357 Trillion

Obama (Proj. thru 2016) = $20.369 Trillion, an increase of $10.383 Trillion

Source - Obama White House 2013 Proposed Budget.

Look, this is really simple.

If we want to have all of these 'free' services from the government, then PAY FOR IT.

We are currently spending about $3.8 Trillion per year, and we are taking in about $2.7 Trillion per year, which leaves a Deficit of about $1.1 Trillion per year. If we want to keep spending at that level - THEN PAY FOR IT, and then the real cost of government will not be hidden with borrowed money - sending the bill to our children and grandchildren. It's GROSSLY UNFAIR to hide the real cost of current spending with 'Borrowed Money'. It doesn't work with our personal finances, and it doesn't work with the government (just ask Greece).

It will cost the average family of 4 about $14,000 per year in new taxes ($1,165 per month) to finance the current extra spending, but hey - if that's what you want, THEN PAY FOR IT.

Here is the biggest problem facing the United States today;

The National Debt is projected by Obama to be $20.392 Trillion in 2016, if Obama gets all of his tax increases he's asked for (Obama's 2013 Budget).

Interest Rates over the last 30 years before Obama averaged 4.92% per year.

If history is a guide, we can expect the Interest alone on the National Debt to increase to about slightly over $1 Trillion per year in 2016, an increase of over $800 Billion per year above the average of $199 Billion per year paid under Bush. That's an increase of more than $8 TRILLION over 10 years.

And Interest expense will increase from 10.02% of Federal receipts in 2008 to 27.6% of Federal receipts in 2016. That dramatic increase in tax revenues that will have to be dedicated to Interest expense will crowd out huge amounts of spending that can be used for 'entitlements' and running the government. That dramatic increase in money spent for Interest will require huge tax increases, which will also cause a huge drop in consumer spending, which will stagnate the economy.

No matter what happens over the next 4 years, EVERYONE will face huge tax increases – just to pay the Interest expense.

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio "Budgets never control spending.......This President has agreed to more spending cuts than any president ever. $1.4T so far with another $1.2T that must be cut by March 1 or the sequester goes into effect."

What nonsense - that's what a Budget is for. "Talking' about cutting spending, without specifics, is just rhetoric. Here are some FACTS;

The average Federal spending in Bush's last 4 years was $2.710 Trillion per year.

The average Federal spending in Obama's first 4 years was $3.529 Trillion per year.

That's an increase in spending of $819 Billion per year (+30.2%) - $3.277 Trillion in the last 4 years under Obama.

If that's your idea of 'cutting spending', I have some great swamp - er - 'Waterfront' land to sell you.

Kicking the American people down the road for 3 months is just precarious, we don't need another potential confrontation in just a few months !!!

This is just another GOP gimmick and a threat to hold our economy hostage !!!

Republicans Eric Cantor, John Boehner and Paul Ryan are having so much fun pushing us back into a recession !!!

The American people are not buying the BS the GOP is peddling !!!

Tbenton

My source is the IRS, & the BLS.

Some of the red states pay as little as .75 on the dollar and get back 1.15 on the dollar. In some cases it is less, but on the average per capita they pay less than they put in compaired to the blue states.

@ Get Real and others of that ilk:

I am a small business owner, a job creator, a taxpayer. I pay all of my bills on time, including putting two kids through college.

And guess what? I'm a Democrat, and damned proud of it. And you know what else, there are millions and millions of other Democrats just like me. Well-educated, gainfully employed, and caring about this great country and its future. We just happen to believe in a few things that you, apparently, don't. We believe that the wealthiest and most powerful nation anywhere, ever, can afford to look out for its most vulnerable citizens. We believe that the middle class is the greatest economic engine the world has ever seen, and that economic growth starts there, not at the top.

Maybe you guys need to open a window, and open your eyes, and look around you. Sure, the nation has twenty bazillion dollars in Treasury bonds outstanding, resulting from decisions both good (economic stimulus to blunt the Great Recession) and bad (cutting taxes while simultaneously waging a war of our choosing). But step outside and look around you.

The sun is still shining. Delivery trucks are carrying goods to market. Artillery shells aren't falling around our heads.

We've got it pretty damned good here in the USA, I'd say. And by any economic measure you care to point to, we're better off now than we were where Bush left us. (Indeed, we all seem to be struggling to get back to the fiscal state we were in at the end of the Clinton administration. Put another way, we all seem to agree we'd be much better off if George W. Bush had never been President.)

I guess in a way I hope that you and your fellow Republicans continue to think that Democrats are just a bunch of lazy, poor, uneducated slobs just waiting for our welfare check to arrive. Because, as I said in my earlier post in this thread, operating from a false set of "facts" will keep leading you to choose bad strategies and to make poor decisions.

Face it. You guys need more voters than you've got. You need people like me. How will you ever get me if you ignore me, insult me, or pretend I don't exist?

I know your party's in a bit of shambles just now, but you really do need to get past this wounded, cornered dog stage, don't you think?

I might also add that Rachel Maddow did a short segment on this (Red states pay less) and I looked it up so that I would know it wasn't just BS on the part of MSNBC.

ROY,

Most of the cuts he agreed to (over 10 years) do not even take effect until FY2014 (some later) so we do not cause reduced spending thus layoffs while we are still in recovery. BTW the Republican controlled House agreed with those cuts and the timing and to the Sequester … Re the Budget Control Act of 2011.

Budgets do not control spending … the Congress can, has and will continue to authorize “off-budget” spending … at times for huge amounts … hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

Steve,

Top 10 States / districts receiving the most federal funding per tax dollar paid:
1. New Mexico: $2.63
2. West Virginia: $2.57
3. Mississippi: $2.47
4. District of Colombia: $2.41
5. Hawaii: $2.38
6. Alabama: $2.03
7. Alaska: $1.93
8. Montana: $1.92
9. South Carolina: $1.92
10. Maine: $1.78
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110804194633AANe6MN
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/26/blog-posting/red-state-socialism-graphic-says-gop-leaning-state/
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_states_receive_more_federal_tax_dollars_than_they_pay_in

Roy Wilson - your numbers are false. You don't include Bush's $1.3T for 2009.

Looky here:

The federal budget deficit will hit an unparalleled $1.2 trillion for the 2009 budget year

Note that this was published Jan 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama was even sworn in as president. Howe could that possibly be Obama's fault? It isn't! This was George W. Bush's last budget which didn't end until Oct 30, 2009.

And, that was just projected. The real numbers for fiscal year 2009, excluding the the $240B that Obama spent on stimulus, was more like $1.4T

But you keep twisting those numbers - you keep trying to make Bush look better than he was. The American voters know better!

Steve,

States Receiving the Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

Looking at those 9 guys walking down the stairs reminds me of 9 Klansmen, unmasked!!!!!!

Boehner overheard telling Cantor, "I'll be damned if I'm going to MY White House to sit and watch a movie about a Black President while a Black President is in MY White House!!

LOL....Just kidding!!!!!

Steve,

The facts are not in your favor, red states do receive more in federal funds, but that is because it goes to farmers. That is why we are complaining about the wasteful spending, why does a farmer need CRP when he has record crops year in and year out, this from my local newspaper "Bumper Crop" they even said that we haven't used that term in years, now his 16 year old son has a brand new Chevy Camaro, and a new Chevy Silverado (at least he has good taste in vehicles), but yet all Liberals can do is complain about the evil corporations, now who is being greedy?

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio "ROY, Most of the cuts he agreed to (over 10 years) do not even take effect until FY2014 (some later) .......Budgets do not control spending"

Since Budgets set spending levels on a year by year basis, a 'future' spending cut is meaningless. What one Congress/President 'promises' in the future gets forgotten each time a new Budget gets passed - an annual process.

An expenditure has to be 'Budgeted' (thus authorized) before it can be spent, so how you can claim it does not control spending is beyond me. That's why the government will 'shut down' (except for certain essential services) if Congress and the President do not agree on a Budget (or a Continuing Resolution, which normally authorizes continuing spending at the current level).

EEngineer "Roy Wilson - your numbers are false. You don't include Bush's $1.3T for 2009....The federal budget deficit will hit an unparalleled $1.2 trillion for the 2009 budget year...Note that this was published Jan 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama was even sworn in as president. Howe could that possibly be Obama's fault? It isn't! This was George W. Bush's last budget which didn't end until Oct 30, 2009."

Honestly, the ignorance of some people is astounding. Your argument might have some credibility if Bush actually signed a Budget for 2009, but the Democratic Congress refused to give him one to sign or veto, so Bush only authorized spending for fiscal 2009 AT THE SAME LEVEL AS IN 2008 (See links below for confirmation);

https://www.aamc.org/advocacy/washhigh/highlights2008/159056/president_signs_spending_bill.html

www.chieftain.com/news/local/bush-signs-budget/article_0d64329f-0c6f...

www.docstoc.com/docs/5109251/continuing-resolution

osr.rice.edu/forms/NIH/NIHAwardLimitsContinuingResolution.doc

That Deficit projection for 2009 was made based on Obama's planned increase in spending, which was included in the actual Budget for 2009 that was SIGNED BY OBAMA in early March 2009 - after Obama passed his huge $860 Billion 'Stimulus Bill'.

Blaming Bush for the 2009 Deficit defies reality and history.

ROY,

Hurricane Sandy relief was not budgeted, the Afghan war was not budgeted. They were approved under the emergency spending rule. They spent money not budgeted. It was repeated for several years to pay for the
Afghan and Iraq wars.

There are rules built in that allows Congress to spend when necessary even when the spending is not authorized in the budget.

This is the reason that some in Congress insist on “offsets” for any emergency spending.

EEngineer

By the way - the fiscal years ends on September 30, not October 30 of each year.

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio "ROY, Hurricane Sandy relief was not budgeted, the Afghan war was not budgeted. They were approved under the emergency spending rule."

Any emergency spending is considered a Change in the Budget, so they are indeed 'budgeted', although such emergency spending is very limited.

The Afghan war was included in the budget requests for every one of Bush's budget requests, as well as every one of Obama's budget requests.

I suppose your next claim is that "Bush hid the cost of the wars 'off the books', but Obama changed that", which is also a bunch of baloney.

ROY,

When he submitted his 2006 budget to Congress in February, it didn't contain one penny for combat in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Shortly after he submitted his 2006 budget, Bush went to Congress to ask for $82 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/xp-25651

(01/23/2008) The White House confirmed Wednesday that its new budget next month will not request a full year’s funding for the war in Iraq, leaving the next president and Congress to confront major cost questions soon after taking office in 2009.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/8080.html

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

Thank You for making my point.

intelligent one-411352:

It is senseless to try and debate anything with you as you have a tendency to blow up factors to try and make your point right. You tell mew I'm wrong with facts then in the next sentence agree with me on them. I made a general statement, but did not list why those factors are so, because it does very from state to state.

Steve,

Roy has memory lapses when it suits his purposes!

intelligent one,

Wrong! I've been constantly complaining about those leaches for entitlements called Farmers. 2% of us are farmers and they take 14% of the entitlement money! They are the biggest complainers of public assistance as well. At least in our family where they are constantly complaining! Of course, it is on my wife's side!

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio "ROY, Shortly after he submitted his 2006 budget, Bush went to Congress to ask for $82 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

My, my - How history has a way of repeating itself - Here's a quote from another article about Obama and the war "Last week, the Obama Administration sent to Congress an $83.4 billion supplemental appropriation request primarily to fund war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and support for Pakistan." Here's the link;

http://www.one.org/us/2009/04/16/fy2009-supplemental-appropriation/

Notice the date - April 16, 2009 - only about 4 weeks after Obama signed HIS 2009 Budget on March 11, 2009. Here's the link;
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29632177/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-signs-massive-imperfect-spending-bill/#.UPrqgSfBGpc

What's really laughable is that Bush is criticized and Obama is lauded, but they both handled the war costs IN THE SAME MANNER.

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio "

"The Afghan war was (NOT) included in the budget requests for every one of Bush's budget requests, as well as every one of Obama's budget requests."

I stand corrected - thanks for the link, but my link shows that it appears that Obama did the same thing as well. By the way - some people seem to think that this means that the cost of the wars was 'kept off the books' by Bush, but in reality it only means that Budgets had to be revised from time to time as new war costs were needed - under both Bush AND Obama. The total cost of the wars WAS included in the final spending totals for each year under both Bush and Obama.

http://www.one.org/us/2009/04/16/fy2009-supplemental-appropriation/

intelligent one-411352 "Steve, The facts are not in your favor, red states do receive more in federal funds,"

It depends on how you present the 'facts'. For example, some studies show that 'red states' receive a higher 'refund rate' than blue states (per capita), but they fail to consider that the total AMOUNT of funds paid to blue states is much larger - Case in point;

Of the total of 30,3012,109 people receiving welfare assistance in 2008, 73.4% of them were in states that voted for Obama. Summarizing the 'rates' by state, and then implying that those 'Republican' states get more than their share, hides the facts that the vast majority of the popular votes (and electoral college votes) for Obama came from states that got the vast majority of welfare funds. The report, which was published in the liberal N Y Times, is linked below;

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/01/25/us/20090126-welfare-table.html

ROY,

Thanks

So which deficit/surplus projection is used, the submitted budget, the Congressional budget (as passed) or the final (after revisions) which will match the debt increase/decrease ?

Honestly, the ignorance of some people is astounding. Your argument might have some credibility if Bush actually signed a Budget for 2009, but the Democratic Congress refused to give him one to sign or veto, so Bush only authorized spending for fiscal 2009 AT THE SAME LEVEL AS IN 2008 (See links below for confirmation);

Yes, honestly, the ignorance of some people! Did you ever bother to read your own links?

President Bush Sept. 30 signed a continuing resolution to fund most of the federal government at FY 2008 levels through March 6, 2009... The bill also includes the full FY 2009 spending bills for defense, homeland security, and military construction-VA, including increases over FY 2008 for VA medical care and VA research.

So it didn't just continue 2008 levels of spending. It increased spending for defense, homeland security and military construction. Now, why were Democrats objecting to the 2009 budget? Because they objected to Bush's $3.1 Trillion spending! But that didn't stop Bush. In fact, after his infamous bailout program, federal spending managed to top $3.5T in 2009!!!

So everything you link to just supports what I have been saying all along: Bush spent money like a drunken sailor and attempts to curb his spending by the Democratic majority in Congress were met by... wait for it... more spending!

This whole fiscal responsibility pose by Republicans is a new and recent thing! It certainly had no part in Republican policy for 8 years of the Bush administration while they doubled federal government spending ($1.8T in 2000 up to $3.5T in 2009) and doubled the national debt ($5.7T in 2000 up to $11.9T in 2009).

If you are truly so outraged at government spending and the horrendous levels of national debt, Roy Wilson, you should be voting Democratic!

EEngineer "Roy - Did you ever bother to read your own links?............ Now, why were Democrats objecting to the 2009 budget? Because they objected to Bush's $3.1 Trillion spending!"

Perhaps YOU should read your own posts - It wasn't Bush that increased spending to $3.5 Trillion, it was Obama, including part of his $860 Billion 'Stimulus Bill'.

ROY WILSON-336103

Yawns.....mmmhmmm.

Keep looking...The posts made by Dennis, Columbus, Ohio are correct....I stand by my statement as I made no mention as to what funding of which federal programs or how that money was dispersed in each state.

Food stamp assistance is run under the Department of Agriculture, welfare is run under a different program.

So it really depends on how you split the hair now doesn't it.

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio "ROY, Thanks So which deficit/surplus projection is used,"

When I quote figures, I use actual costs when available (including the wars), and when I use projections, I identify the source - typically from the official Obama White House.

Steve-3564331 "Yawns.....mmmhmmm."

Indeed - It's time to do something more 'productive = Bye, and have a nice day :)

What I don't get is the Neocons using MSN as a news source.....Don't they know how to switch home pages?

If you Neocon's really think that MSN, MSNBC are truly slanted then why come here if you know that we libs control it? your not going to convert us nor convince us.

Wouldn't it better better to go over to Fox where they would stroke your ego and agree with every word you say. They will even help you out with some conspiracy theory.

I do have to say thanks for the entertainment though......You guys are funny in a sick sorta way.

Is it me or does Steve-lotsanumbers look like he belongs in the Village People?

Steve,

They come here like we go to FOX. They get the news and we just get propaganda! Also, we get a lot of good belly laughs!

Talk to the Hand,

It is just you!@#!@#!

teve-3564331"If you Neocon's really think that MSN, MSNBC are truly slanted then why come here if you know that we libs control it? your not going to convert us nor convince us."

You never know.

But then it's also fun to play the game "Confound a Liberal" - It's really easy to play as well.

Everyone - just wait for the other shoe to drop. The republicans extracted $60 billion (with a B) in payola to their special interest friends in order for them to support avoiding the fiscal cliff. What level of extortion will they require in order to raise the debt limit?

Remember - we have to cut social programs in order to pay for the billions given to special interests. Oh yeah - and to balance the budget.

Shouldn't Congress and President follow their own laws in regard to the budget process?

Interested - LOL! Republican special interests? LOL! What makes you think that benefits for RAce track owners and the like were Republican interests? You're as bad as the Tea Party - you see what you want to see - regardless of the truth.

Dennis/clwyd - All I read from your responses and posts are SPEND SPEND SPEND and there is no way to stop it. Budgets don't control spending....Farmers take 14% of entitlements, so what? blah blah blah...Spending is out of control and there are plenty of places to cut. The Fed is manipulating the currency & interest rates with QE4 or 5...So much for those whining about China manipulating currencies.

Obama's cuts are fraud...I told my wife we would buy a $5 million mansion in the future, then I told her we weren't...Look I cut $5 million.!!! Wrong...Nothing was actually cut.

clwyd - Spare me with "it's the law"...They change the law daily. Hey, why doesn't Obama use an executive order that he loves so much to change the laws?

If you liberals support government spending so much, then at least have the courage to demand/support 50% tax rates on EVERYONE including the middle class and poor to PAY FOR IT. Nothing is free. The Govt can not give anyone anything without taking it from someone else.

It's a financial reality that ever increasing debt will ultimately destroy you. It's playing out all over the world...Greece, Spain, France, etc are in deep financial crisis. It's not a Republican reality. It's not a Democrat reality. It's a FINANCIAL reality. Why are people so blind on this?

I hope the debt gets downgraded again...Interest goes up. Since people can not learn from reason, it must come from pain.

And no, Bush's and the Republican spending was not ok either. I'm not Republican. But Bush is GONE....Obama has been in 4 years and will be the next 4. Only HE can change it...no one else. It's up to him to lead Congress.

It wasn't Bush that increased spending to $3.5 Trillion, it was Obama, including part of his $860 Billion 'Stimulus Bill'.

Roy, Roy, Roy... that's simply not true! Stimulus spending during 2009 totaled $185B. That still leaves $3.3T Bush was responsible for. Further, that stimulus spending wouldn't have been necessary were it not for dubya's (and all the other Republicans') disastrous housing policies including the American Dream Downpayment Initiative (sponsored by a Republican, co-sponsored only by other Republicans, voted into law by Republican majorities in both houses of Congress and signed into law by a Republican president) designed to put people into houses that they couldn't afford.

But don't take my word for Bush's propensity to spend. According to the Wall Street Journal here:

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

No, spin it any way you want, nobody spent like Bush and America is still paying the price for his idiocy.

Paws,

In reality all I talked about is how much has already been cut. I didn't say that we should not cut more, we should but it needs to be done smartly so that we do not hurt the economy – we need job growth to bring in more tax revenue not cuts that will cut additional tax revenue. We should also be aiming at generating more revenue thru revising the tax code for both individuals and business.

If you think that the Federal Government is too large then you should consider this:
While government spending increased over the last decade the actual size of government has been relatively stable both in the actual number of employees and as a percent of the population.
In fact we have fewer government employees than in the 80's with a huge drop as a percent of our population.

Number of Federal employees (excluding military)
YEAR <> Fed Emp (000) <> Population (000,000) <> % of Population
2010 <> 2,841 <> 309.3 <> 0.92% <> Obama *
2009 <> 2,839 <> 307.0 <> 0.92% <> Obama
2005 <> 2,702 <> 295.8 <> 0.91% <> Bush
2001 <> 2,704 <> 285.1 <> 0.95% <> Bush
1997 <> 2,787 <> 272.6 <> 1.02% <> Clinton
1993 <> 3,014 <> 259.9 <> 1.16% <> Clinton
1989 <> 3,124 <> 246.8 <> 1.27% <> Bush
1985 <> 3,066 <> 237.9 <> 1.29% <> Reagan
1981 <> 2,860 <> 229.5 <> 1.25% <> Reagan
1976 <> 2,893 <> 219.8 <> 1.32% <> Carter
*= Includes temp Census workers & it is the last year data is available
http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/TotalGovernmentSince1962.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

Dennis - I was combining the response to 2 people, so everything is not to you. Frankly, the number of govt of employees as a percentage of the population is an irrelevent stat. At 313 million, govt would have to hire 3 mill to move it 1%. It's not about number of govt workers, it's how they spend the money.

Million dollar GSA parties in Vegas, robot squirrels, tanks the DOD doesn't want because they have too many already, the Murtha Airport, and there is plenty more, Solyndra, Pelosi's $100K bar tab AND SHE DOESN't EVEN DRINK.!!! Has anyone been held accountable for these abuses of tax payer money? NO.!!! Firing is not enough. Obama handing out waivers to his union and corporate cronies for Obamacare taxes. Why are some people not paying their "fair share"?

I don't mind being taxed for roads, police, etc., but the government is not prudent with the American taxpayers money. There is PLENTY of fat they can cut.

I don't care Republican or Democrat, none of them has been looking out for the American public. And as they march around talking about raising mine, corporate, or whatever other version of taxes you want to consider, spending needs to be brought back under control and they're avoiding it like the plague on both sides.

Paws,

Regardless that the percent of population is small, over time, it shows the trend for a smaller government.

Then look at the actual number of employees and you see a serious trend over the last 2 to 3 decades.

Anyone can point to reckless spending in every administration with some being much worse than the current one.

So according to many spending is up by Hundreds of Billions so where is it going since the number of employees, departments and agencies remains virtually unchanged?

Paws,

Where have I said anything about Spending? I mentioned that we have farmers in the family who complain about entitlements, like you, but they don't see that they, the 2%, get 14% of the entitlements. I don't see them turning them down! Just telling others to do without! Hypocrisy is what I'm talking about. I mentioned that for decades republicans and Democrats have passed laws and programs to spend and now you can't just void them. They are the law! So Social Security which I paid into and I'm entitled to started in the 30's and now the cost are not being covered. So why blame Obama? Hypocrisy again!

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

This President has agreed to more spending cuts than any president ever...

You are a fool. Wanna buy a bridge?

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

we have fewer government employees than in the 80's with a huge drop as a percent of our population.....

Ummm, you didn't include illegals Dennis, you seem to be an expert and distorting fact.

STL,

I am sorry I missed your reply. The House budget makes a Senate budget a useless exercise and a waste of time. You apparently do not understand the historic budget process if you think that three separate budgets are proposed entirely unrelated to each other you are greatly mistaken. House committees are supposed to review the presidents budget and amend it and the House do the same the House instead of considering the executive budget requests has chosen to ignore them in entirety and present some moronic overview of The United States of Ludwig von Mises. The hearings they deigned to hold more closely resembled Stalinesque show trials. The Senate has nothing they can reconcile to so what possible reason exists to present a budget to attempt reconciliation with a political treatise and not a budget. The RYAN PLAN I NOT A BUDGET it is a political statement. They received thousands of pages of costs and funding requests as well as revenue solutions and replied with a Freshman term paper supporting Austrian economics. It is a stonewall how does the Senate even begin to reach a starting point.

The democrats could have done this to either Bush or to Reagan and although they were in opposition they did not deliberately make compromise an impossibility. This has been the stated position of the House and Senate GOP since 2009.

jkh