• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Will Senate Democrats Put Out a Budget?

Will Senate Democrats put out a Budget?

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 7.1%

  • No - They will adopt the Obama Budget and try to pass it

    Votes: 2 14.3%

  • No - They will ignore their duty alltogether and hope the story goes away

    Votes: 8 57.1%

  • No - they will allow multiple factions to put forth budget proposals and let them all fail

    Votes: 3 21.4%
  • Total voters
    14
cpwill

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,605
Reaction score
39,893
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
They have, after all, not just an ethical, but a legal requirement to do so.

Will Senate Democrats put out a budget this year, or allow this to be the third year in a row that they have utterly failed in the most basic task of governance and accountability?
 
Probably not, it'll only harm their chances in November. Even though most know the annual deficits we're incurring, it looks even worse on paper.
 
No. Hopeless Harry is like a deer in the headlights and nothing will be done while he leads the herd.
 
The House puts out the budget but the Senate must pass it too. The question should be, "Will the HOUSE will put out a budget that can pass the Senate". We all know the answer to that......NO.
The House has no intention of producing a budget that has any chance of passing the Senate, how would they blame Dems for not passing a budget then?
 
iguanaman said:
The House puts out the budget but the Senate must pass it too. The question should be, "Will the HOUSE will put out a budget that can pass the Senate". We all know the answer to that......NO.
The House has no intention of producing a budget that has any chance of passing the Senate, how would they blame Dems for not passing a budget then?
Click to expand...
So you place the entire blame for Senate inaction on the House, even though the Senate doesn't produce any alternative? Bizarre!
 
I think something along the lines of option 4. They will have one primary budget, and a a secondary "plan" put out by the Senate GOP. The GOP won't give any ground, the Democrats won't be able to bring enough of their more conservative members behind the primary plan, and nothing will happen. To put the blame on the Democrats alone is ovbiously a purely partisan action, but they will undoubtedly carry a good share of the blame. The rest of the blame goes to the Senate Republicans who are unwilling to compromise.

I think something like Ryan's budget is going to come out of the House, and that obviously won't pass because it's going to be an extreme plan.
 
repeter said:
I think something like Ryan's budget is going to come out of the House, and that obviously won't pass because it's going to be an extreme plan.
Click to expand...

It's an extreme plan, but these are extreme times. Frankly, Democrats are fools to let it go because it's political suicide. Don't they remember the Contract With America back in Clinton days? That was essentially a Congressional Democrat flush. Quite honestly, Senate Democrats really have no choice but to do something, unless they want to get swapped out and go back to employment in the private sector.
 
Multiple plans will be put out by people from both parties, but none will pass because none will have enough votes. And if it were to pass the Senate, it would have a hard time passing the House as well.
 
Honestly it seems like a lot of conservatives started following politics in 2008. This isn't the first time the Senate hasn't passed a budget...and in fact the Republican controlled Senate has not passed budgets before.

Since 1983 -- the first year the House and Senate stopped passing two budget resolutions annually and began passing one per year -- the two chambers failed to pass a joint budget bill on four occasions. For fiscal year 2003, the Senate, then under Democratic control, failed to pass a budget resolution of any kind, and on three other occasions (fiscal years 1999, 2005 and 2007) the House and Senate failed to reconcile their different bills and pass a compromise measure. In these latter three cases, the Republicans were in the majority in both chambers of Congress.

Because Congress always works on the budget resolution for the coming fiscal year, Hoyer is right that a unified Republican Congressional majority failed to pass a finished budget in 2004 and 2006. Hoyer failed to mention the GOP's failure in 1998. Moreover, the Republicans can't be solely faulted for the failure in 2002 to pass a fiscal 2003 budget, because the Democrats controlled the Senate and were unable to pass a budget resolution.
Click to expand...
PolitiFact | Hoyer says GOP 'didn't have a budget' in 2002, 2004, 2006

Lets get some perspective here...Dems need to put out a budget to contrast the Ryan Budget but no budget will pass Congress this year. It took government shutdowns and defualts in order for this congress to do anything.
 
I predict that both parties will create budgets for the sole purpose of grandstanding and nobody will actually give a damn about getting anything constructive done.
 
Gipper said:
It's an extreme plan, but these are extreme times. Frankly, Democrats are fools to let it go because it's political suicide. Don't they remember the Contract With America back in Clinton days? That was essentially a Congressional Democrat flush. Quite honestly, Senate Democrats really have no choice but to do something, unless they want to get swapped out and go back to employment in the private sector.
Click to expand...

If the point is to play populist games, sure, I suppose they should just do whatever's easy and gets something done. But the Ryan plan doesn't sufficiently cover the range of options we have. It's preposterous that so many of the Republicans (like 95%) have signed Norquist's Pledge. We need to make massive cuts, I fully agree, but we need to also increase revenue, will also simplifying the tax code.

I think extreme for our time would be to do everything that works. We can stop funding the Armed Forces, demolish Social Security and all that, but that just because that's extreme doesn't mean its what's best for the country.
 
repeter said:
If the point is to play populist games, sure, I suppose they should just do whatever's easy and gets something done. But the Ryan plan doesn't sufficiently cover the range of options we have. It's preposterous that so many of the Republicans (like 95%) have signed Norquist's Pledge. We need to make massive cuts, I fully agree, but we need to also increase revenue, will also simplifying the tax code.
Click to expand...

The problem I have with that is that I am no follower, nor am I a fan of the upgraded neo-Keynesian movement and its views on increasing public sector revenue through blank check policy.

I think extreme for our time would be to do everything that works. We can stop funding the Armed Forces, demolish Social Security and all that, but that just because that's extreme doesn't mean its what's best for the country.
Click to expand...

That's not extreme though; that's self-destructive. Obviously the Ryan plan is extreme just because of the numbers. When you talk about cuts in the trillions, it's naturally going to hit you like a slug to the face. What alternative do we have though? Without our trade imbalance and our debt growing at the exponential rate it is, trimming the pork and modest gestures will do nothing more than put a band-aid on a bullet wound.

We don't need reform. We need revolution. We need a new way of thinking, and a new method to get there.
 
Gipper said:
The problem I have with that is that I am no follower, nor am I a fan of the upgraded neo-Keynesian movement and its views on increasing public sector revenue through blank check policy.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with that definition, but let's agree to disagree then.

Gipper said:
That's not extreme though; that's self-destructive. Obviously the Ryan plan is extreme just because of the numbers. When you talk about cuts in the trillions, it's naturally going to hit you like a slug to the face. What alternative do we have though? Without our trade imbalance and our debt growing at the exponential rate it is, trimming the pork and modest gestures will do nothing more than put a band-aid on a bullet wound.
Click to expand...

My point is I think the Ryan plan would be self-destructive as well. I agree we need something more than just cuts, or tax increases, but we need a plan that includes every option available to us. Yes, we can see some massive cuts, but at the same time, we can't be taxing millionaires/billionaires at 15%.

Gipper said:
We don't need reform. We need revolution. We need a new way of thinking, and a new method to get there.
Click to expand...

I completely agree, but that's an entirely different story.
 
repeter said:
My point is I think the Ryan plan would be self-destructive as well. I agree we need something more than just cuts, or tax increases, but we need a plan that includes every option available to us. Yes, we can see some massive cuts, but at the same time, we can't be taxing millionaires/billionaires at 15%.
Click to expand...

I don't think we should either. The problem is that we don't. It seems that the average, stupid, believe-what-they're-told middle to lower middle class American actually believes that all millionaires make their money through capital gains. That's not even close to being the real truth.

This is why, in my perfect little world, a meritocracy would be in place - and why I'll never be a "true" libertarian. I'm too much into stifling and censoring the intellectually inferior population, and not giving them a dangerous weapon as an equal vote.
 
Gipper said:
I don't think we should either. The problem is that we don't. It seems that the average, stupid, believe-what-they're-told middle to lower middle class American actually believes that all millionaires make their money through capital gains. That's not even close to being the real truth.
Click to expand...

Specific exemptions and such aside (which we shouldn't have in the first place), what exactly do you want to tax them? More or less?

I myself would like to see them taxed more. I don't think that the trickle-down theory works very effectively, unless we're using the increased revenue from the rich to decrease the taxes of the lower brackets or something like that,
 
Gipper said:
We don't need reform. We need revolution. We need a new way of thinking, and a new method to get there.
Click to expand...
It's a shame the Republicans didn't push those same ideals a decade ago when they had all the power. :roll:


Instead they took a budget that was fairly well balanced and ... well, history speaks for itself.
 
Last edited:
I'm going with number 4. Their primary objective is to attempt to look like they have some budget in mind, but primarily running or campaigning against the Ryan budget.

And no, I don't agree. A policy revolution is something I am skeptical of.
 
Last edited:
The Dems always make budget proposals, but if the Repugs say "No," it gums up the works. The Repugs think that works to their own advantage. What do you think? Morons? Just inept? Cutthroat politics? Politics for the 1%?
 
Diogenes said:
So you place the entire blame for Senate inaction on the House, even though the Senate doesn't produce any alternative? Bizarre!
Click to expand...

Actually the House is the ONLY place that a budget can be proposed, that is their job. The Senate could make up their own but if it doesn't fly in the House it is nothing but a waste of time. The House has done nothing but waste time since convening, so NO I dont blame the Senate for not wanting to follow suit.
 
iguanaman said:
The House puts out the budget but the Senate must pass it too. The question should be, "Will the HOUSE will put out a budget that can pass the Senate". We all know the answer to that......NO.
The House has no intention of producing a budget that has any chance of passing the Senate, how would they blame Dems for not passing a budget then?
Click to expand...
How did they do when the dems controlled the house AND the senate AND the white house?
 
The Ryan Plan at current doesn't even claim to balance the budget until 2040. Which is laughable. No one can predict the occurances of the 2030's that will drive that one way or the other.

It's not "extreme". It is "the most timid form of change possible while still surviving". "Extreme" would entail balancing the budget next year.
 
cpwill said:
The Ryan Plan at current doesn't even claim to balance the budget until 2040. Which is laughable.
Click to expand...

The laughable part is anyone who believes the budget will ever be balanced again. I truly believe it won't be. I'm just looking to knock off a couple zeroes at the end. To me, that is absolute best-case scenario.
 
Oh, I don't know. I tend to suspect that, absent any change, the budget will indeed by be balanced.... just not in ways that we may appreciate.
 
The answer is option #3. The dems have no intention of reducing the debt, they want to increase it. So Harry Reid will just ignore the issue knowing the press wont push him on it, and just run against anything the republicans propose. They want power, not solutions.
 
cpwill said:
The Ryan Plan at current doesn't even claim to balance the budget until 2040. Which is laughable. No one can predict the occurances of the 2030's that will drive that one way or the other.

It's not "extreme". It is "the most timid form of change possible while still surviving". "Extreme" would entail balancing the budget next year.
Click to expand...

The extrreme part of the Ryan budget is the tax increases on the middle class which don't even reduce the deficit because of the TAX CUTS on the wealthy and corporations. No to mention the Voucher system that eliminates the Medicare garantee.

The new Ryan budget is a remarkable document—one that, for most of the past half-century, would have been outside the bounds of mainstream discussion due to its extreme nature. In essence, this budget is Robin Hood in reverse—on steroids. It would likely produce the largest redistribution of income from the bottom to the top in modern U.S. history and likely increase poverty and inequality more than any other budget in recent times (and possibly in the nation's history).
Click to expand...

Paul Ryan Budget Won't Solve Deficit Crisis - Economic Intelligence (usnews.com)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom