• 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!

Obama Makes New Budget Sales Pitch; GOP Strikes Back

I can believe that is your answer which is non responsive to the post. The budget process led to no signed budget for the past 3 years and apparently you have no problem with that. You also have no problem touting the lies of the Obama budget that doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing but instead is a campaign doctrine that appeals to the nanny state vote like you appear to be

I can't believe you still don't know how the budget process works! I even spelled it out for you.

I'll try just once more.


The presidents budget is presented to the Congressional budget committees and:

(From above, that you missed apparently) - "The Budget committees each submit a budget resolution by April 1."
 
I can't believe you still don't know how the budget process works!
Considering how the senate hasnt passed a budget in a few years I can see how people might forget how the process works. But you should be aware that no budget gets implemented until it passes the Senate. Unfortunately for Obama, and you, Harry Reid has said he is not going to pass a budget again this year, so Obamas budget will never hit the senate floor for a vote and is nothing but a grand and expensive waste of time. If this budget is as great as you think, why wont Reid pass it through his chamber? He has enough democratic votes.
 
Considering how the senate hasnt passed a budget in a few years I can see how people might forget how the process works. But you should be aware that no budget gets implemented until it passes the Senate. Unfortunately for Obama, and you, Harry Reid has said he is not going to pass a budget again this year, so Obamas budget will never hit the senate floor for a vote and is nothing but a grand and expensive waste of time. If this budget is as great as you think, why wont Reid pass it through his chamber? He has enough democratic votes.

So far, all I have is your word the Senate won't submit a budget by April 15.....................
 

So was the 2012 Obama budget before getting voted down 97-0. What is your point? Want to wager how many votes this budget will get if it even gets to the Senate for debate? Why do you buy the Obama rhetoric in the face of the very poor economic results. Do you really support the nanny state?
 
So was the 2012 Obama budget before getting voted down 97-0. What is your point? Want to wager how many votes this budget will get if it even gets to the Senate for debate? Why do you buy the Obama rhetoric in the face of the very poor economic results. Do you really support the nanny state?

As I've tried to tell you, President's budgets never go to the floor for a vote.

A I prefer an economy that is getting better, rather than getting worse as it was under Republican rule, I choose the Democrats.
 
As I've tried to tell you, President's budgets never go to the floor for a vote.

A I prefer an economy that is getting better, rather than getting worse as it was under Republican rule, I choose the Democrats.

Does that mean you supported Bush from 2003-2008 when the economy was booming and the Stock market went over 14000? Or how about when the GDP Grew from 9.9 trillion to 14.4 trillion? Guess you think like all liberals that a 1.8% GDP growth in 2011 is better than the 3.6% GDP growth of 2010?
 
Does that mean you supported Bush from 2003-2008 when the economy was booming and the Stock market went over 14000? Or how about when the GDP Grew from 9.9 trillion to 14.4 trillion? Guess you think like all liberals that a 1.8% GDP growth in 2011 is better than the 3.6% GDP growth of 2010?


LOL!!!!!!!!!!!! You are too funny!
 
NO ONE IS SUGGESTING $20 AN HOUR.

That's what it'd take to be a "living wage" where I'm from.

We are talking about a a couple more bucks an hour for the full time manual labor jobs that exist so that a person can have subsistence to survive without taxpayer assistance.

A couple bucks above minimum wage doesn't really cut it. Prices adjust, jobs become obsolete, and we're back at square one.

The only other options are welfare or crime. I prefer someone working for a living, but that's just me........................

Welfare shouldn't be an option, and crime never is.
 
NO ONE IS SUGGESTING $20 AN HOUR.

"No one"? Really?

Forum Post: Proposed List Of Demands For Occupy Wall St Movement! | OccupyWallSt.org

Someone did:

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

"Official" ratified policy or not, someone suggested it.
 
That's what it'd take to be a "living wage" where I'm from.

Where are you from? You do know that states have the right to increase the federal minimum wage if living expenses are higher in their state, right?



A couple bucks above minimum wage doesn't really cut it. Prices adjust, jobs become obsolete, and we're back at square one.

You know that private job growth that Perry like to brag about? If you do a little searching, you will learn that most of that private job growth was minimum wage jobs. The fact is there are more people than there are jobs which means even people with skills and education are forced to take minimum wage jobs which require taxpayer assistance to bring up to subsistence level.

For myself, I'm no longer interested in subsidizing the cost of your hamburger with my tax dollars.


Welfare shouldn't be an option, and crime never is.

I'll have to see your source that leads you to believe there is no crime.

So what do you see as a 4th option to working for a living, welfare, or crime?
 
Last edited:
You haven't proven any facts yet, but congratulations on your wise choice in not voting for Romney!

NBC Politics - New defense cuts threaten bases, shipyards DEFENSE CUTS
Sound Politics: No budget - Take another year off, Senator Cantwell NO BUDGET
Budget Plan For 2013 Released By Obama (FULL TEXT) OBAMA SPENDING
And two of those stories are from left leaning news sources. Of course, you'll avoid it again even though this proof I have provided was not needed. You knew this stuff, as do all libs. You just choose not to pay attention because it fits into your perfect, big gov't world. Just admit you like the gov't telling you what to do, and we'll move on. Admit you like your toilet flush to be regulated, your light bulbs, type of car you drive, healthcare, retirement, food you eat, etc. Admit you like someone looking out for you in those realms and telling you what's best instead of making your own choices. Admit your an automaton and we'll move on.
 
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!! You are too funny!

Gee, thanks, I cannot believe that someone who believes they are as intelligent as you do keeps getting fooled by the Obama rhetoric and ignores the Obama results. Tell me is 1.8% more or less than 3.6%? Is 15.2 trillion more or less than 10.6 trillion? Are there more employed today than when Obama took office? Are there fewer unemployed today than when Obama took office? Is the misery index higher or lower than when Obama took office? Is the price of gasoline higher or lower than when Obama took office? Want me to go on?

For years liberals called Bush a liar and now liberals cheer Obama for lying. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty and total ignorance of the facts?
 

Glad to see we are finally beginning to address one of the major causes of our debt. Too bad the cuts are so friggin' tiny:

A Scalpel, Not a Hatchet
Why is Obama cutting so little out of the Pentagon budget? He could cut even more.




The Truth Behind The GOP’s ‘1000 Days Without A Budget’ Canard

"Turn on any cable news channel this week and you’ll very likely hear a top Republican froth in anger over the fact that Senate Democrats haven’t passed a budget in more than 1000 days.

This particular talking point has been around for months — long before the Senate crossed the 1000 days threshold. Now that it’s budget season, Republicans hope it pops, filters up into mainstream news coverage, and sows doubt in the minds of voters who don’t understand the Congressional budget process, and don’t realize how unimportant, and in most crucial respects false, the line is. Alternatively, they hope Senate Dems get spooked and move ahead with a budget document that exposes their differences and leaves them open to political attack — but has no impact on policy whatsoever."

"But here are two things Republicans don’t mention about this 1000 days teapot tempest: First, Budget resolutions don’t have the force of law, and they aren’t the legislative tool that mandates what the government can and can not spend. That’s what appropriations bills are for, and for the last 1000 days Democrats and Republicans have worked together, however acrimoniously, to devise spending plans for the government.

Here’s how House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer explained it at a briefing with reporters last week.

“I have a bias. I served for 23 years on the Appropriations Committee. What does the budget do? The budget does one thing and really only one thing. It sets the parameters of spending and discretionary caps. Other than that, the Appropriations Committee is not bound by the Budget Committee’s priorities…. The fact is that you don’t need a budget. We can adopt appropriation bills and we can adopt authorization policies without a budget.”

But the much more important fact Republicans have left out is that the Senate passed a budget on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis last summer — one that unlike an annual “budget resolution” has the force of law behind it. The Budget Control Act — the law that resolved the debt limit fight — set binding appropriations caps for this fiscal year and the next and instituted a mechanism to contain spending on domestic discretionary programs — education, research, community health programs and the like — through the next decade.

As Hoyer explained, “We already have an agreed-upon cap on spending. So that this 1,000 days they haven’t passed a budget, the Republicans went for equal lengths of time without passing a budget. I think ‘05 and ‘06 — I don’t know whether it was a 1,000 days. But in any event, that is an argument to dissemble and distract the attention on the lack of productive accomplishment in the House of Representatives.”

When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says it would be redundant for the Senate to pass a budget, this is what he means. Republicans know this."
The Truth Behind The GOP’s ‘1000 Days Without A Budget’ Canard | TPMDC
 
Glad to see we are finally beginning to address one of the major causes of our debt. Too bad the cuts are so friggin' tiny:

A Scalpel, Not a Hatchet
Why is Obama cutting so little out of the Pentagon budget? He could cut even more.





The Truth Behind The GOP’s ‘1000 Days Without A Budget’ Canard

"Turn on any cable news channel this week and you’ll very likely hear a top Republican froth in anger over the fact that Senate Democrats haven’t passed a budget in more than 1000 days.

This particular talking point has been around for months — long before the Senate crossed the 1000 days threshold. Now that it’s budget season, Republicans hope it pops, filters up into mainstream news coverage, and sows doubt in the minds of voters who don’t understand the Congressional budget process, and don’t realize how unimportant, and in most crucial respects false, the line is. Alternatively, they hope Senate Dems get spooked and move ahead with a budget document that exposes their differences and leaves them open to political attack — but has no impact on policy whatsoever."

"But here are two things Republicans don’t mention about this 1000 days teapot tempest: First, Budget resolutions don’t have the force of law, and they aren’t the legislative tool that mandates what the government can and can not spend. That’s what appropriations bills are for, and for the last 1000 days Democrats and Republicans have worked together, however acrimoniously, to devise spending plans for the government.

Here’s how House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer explained it at a briefing with reporters last week.

“I have a bias. I served for 23 years on the Appropriations Committee. What does the budget do? The budget does one thing and really only one thing. It sets the parameters of spending and discretionary caps. Other than that, the Appropriations Committee is not bound by the Budget Committee’s priorities…. The fact is that you don’t need a budget. We can adopt appropriation bills and we can adopt authorization policies without a budget.”

But the much more important fact Republicans have left out is that the Senate passed a budget on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis last summer — one that unlike an annual “budget resolution” has the force of law behind it. The Budget Control Act — the law that resolved the debt limit fight — set binding appropriations caps for this fiscal year and the next and instituted a mechanism to contain spending on domestic discretionary programs — education, research, community health programs and the like — through the next decade.

As Hoyer explained, “We already have an agreed-upon cap on spending. So that this 1,000 days they haven’t passed a budget, the Republicans went for equal lengths of time without passing a budget. I think ‘05 and ‘06 — I don’t know whether it was a 1,000 days. But in any event, that is an argument to dissemble and distract the attention on the lack of productive accomplishment in the House of Representatives.”

When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says it would be redundant for the Senate to pass a budget, this is what he means. Republicans know this."
The Truth Behind The GOP’s ‘1000 Days Without A Budget’ Canard | TPMDC

Then there won't be any concern when the Obama budget gets zero votes since Democrats now don't care about a budget being in place. Think the Obama priorities are going to get passed by continuing resolutions? LOL, you really are naive and a typical Obama supporter. Better hope he gets another 4 years as that nanny state is needed by you
 
Back
Top Bottom