 |
Prince Harry the Obtuse refusing to allow a budget bill written, voted on and passed by the house has NOTHING to do with a legitimate fillibuster... at least if there is a fillibuster the topic in question is beign seen by the Sentate... HUGE difference than figuratively stuffing it in the drawer... then whining nobody ever gave you anything. Which is a bold faced LIE.
The house has pssed budgets... the Senate was never allowed to even see them... much less have a chance to act on them.
The votes weren't there, but a continuing resolution is a budget,and been used as one for decades. Need a link? Okay.Quote:
QUOTE by tomder55;
Where is the budget from the Senate ? You deflected ;but did not answer. No , the Repubics did not block a vote on the budget... but nice try.
U.S. Senate: Reference Home > Glossary > continuing resolution/continuing appropriations
Continuing resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Budget Control Act of 2011 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
GrammQuote:
Ultimately, the solution came from White House National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling, who, on July 12, 2011, proposed a compulsory trigger that would go into effect if another agreement was not made on tax increases and/or budget cuts equal to or greater than the debt ceiling increase by a future date. The intent was to secure the commitment of both sides to future negotiation by means of an enforcement mechanism that would be unpalatable to Republicans and Democrats alike. President Obama agreed to the plan. House Speaker John Boehner expressed reservations, but also agreed.[15]
On July 26, 2011, White House Budget Director Jack Lew and White House Legislative Affairs Director Rob Nabors met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to discuss the plan. Reid, like Boehner several days before, was initially opposed to the idea, but was eventually convinced to go along with it, with the understanding that the sequester was intended as an enforcement tool rather than a true budget proposal. [16]
Looks to me like this is government owned since all the branches of government had to agree to it.Quote:
President Reagan signed the bill on August 21.[2][dead link] The process for determining the amount of the automatic cuts was found unconstitutional in the case of Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986) and Congress enacted a reworked version of the law in 1987.[3][dead link] Gramm-Rudman failed, however, to prevent large budget deficits. The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 supplanted the fixed deficit targets.
Balanced budgets did not actually emerge until the late 1990s when budget surpluses (not accounting for liabilities to the Social Security Trust Fund) emerged.
Yep. But to Speech, repubs didn't raise taxes, they let the old ones expire, and lowered middle class taxes. But off course now the plan is to cut things that benefit the lower classe to keep corporate welfare for the rich is the thing to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Feed the rich and not the poor. Even the TParty can see that's whack! Right?
From your own link :Only in your dream is that a budget.Quote:
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 or reduced levels.
Dude, you need a new line. I can repeat that one for you verbatim.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
LOL, smh, and nanny state are ingrained in my memory as well.
Remember this
The House passed a bill for $1.2 trillion in targeted cuts over 10 years to replace the sequester cuts weeks ago. If Zero and the Dems disagreed with the Republic cuts, it was their job to pass what they wanted in the Senate. Then the two bills would have gone to a Conference Committee.
That's how the system worked pre-Obama. So to listen to the windbag belly ache about the injustices of the sequester when he had the means to do something about it may be feel good placebo for the Obots... but we know better .
Like Ex said... his goals are not what Is in the best interest of the country . His goals are raw community activist Alinsky politics
At least I offer variety.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Either or is not variety,
Can't count?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
National Security and Job Protection Act (2012; 112th Congress H.R. 6365) - GovTrack.us
Quote:
to abolish the distinction between security and nonsecurity categories of discretionary spending for new budget authority in FY2013. Combines the dollar amounts of the current categories ($686 billion for the security category and $361 billion for the nonsecurity category) into a single amount of $1.047 trillion in new budget authority.
Translation-"Here mr. Prez we combined the sequester cuts together and you decide what to do about it. Ball in your court.".Quote:
Requires the President by October 15, 2012, to transmit to Congress a legislative proposal that meets such requirements
A better bill I think is a one liner... The sequester has been cancelled until further notice!
It must be contagious, all Obama's supporters suddenly agree with him that his plan sucks.
Hello again, tom:
I don't know WHO this Alinsky is, but if he advises a president to DESTROY his enemies, after they FAILED to destroy him, then Alinsky is on to something...Quote:
... his goals are not what Is in the best interest of the country . His goals are raw community activist Alinsky politics
Tell me, right winger, is saying that their ONE goal is to make Obama a one term president, IN the best interest of the country??
Obama SHOULD destroy you! You HATE America!
Excon
It's entirely patriotic to try and save America from Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:
I'm sorry... I'm sitting here snickering - laughing out loud, actually. You don't KNOW that the sequester was DESIGNED to be unacceptable?? In fact, SOOOO unacceptable that congress would SURLY avoid it?? You didn't know that??Quote:
It must be contagious, all Obama's supporters suddenly agree with him that his plan sucks.
You appear to be saying that Obama wrote the law because he thought the sequester was a GOOD way to make cuts...
Who told you that?? Brietbart? Hannity?? O'Reilly??
Look, my friend... Walk away from the TV. Tune into MSNBC for some TRUTH..
Excon
What I'm saying is perfectly clear, Obama came up with a plan and now he's fear mongering about his own policy and trying to shame Republicans into caving. It's on every channel.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
And dude, it was Bob Woodward not Hannity. Seems it is you that needs to change the channel.
EVERY body knows NOTHING will get past the TParty controlled house. Except god, guns, and corporate welfare. As bridges and roads fall to disrepair, and nobody is working.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Arizona highway buckles due to 'geologic event' - Philadelphia News, Weather and Sports from WTXF FOX 29
Better get that fence built better and buy more guns.
More deflection.
I posted his speech where he said he'd veto attempts to repeal the sequester... Then he and Reid let the House' attempt to reverse it die in the Senate. Fine.. I got no problem with that .I say bring the sequester on . Nothing else will force budget cuts with this cast of characters .Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
But his campaign to blame the Repubics is transparently bogus.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:59 PM. |