The new budget offer from the White House is unbelievable!

Originally posted by Ghost375
What the hell is wrong with you guys?

It's Congress that is supposed to pass budgets, not the President!

You should be mad at Congress for failing to do their job!

Not Obama for stepping in because Congress isn't doing theirs!

The hate for this one man is blinding you from reality.

Is Obama NOT taking full advantage to spread his "type" of Government, at behest of the very congress that fails every American, as I type?

Sorry, but Obama is taking advantage of the situation. Clearly.

And let me remind you.......

For the second consecutive year, the Democrat-controlled United States Senate has unanimously rejected President Obama's 2013 budget. The final vote was 99-0, making the the running two-year tally 196-0. This move follows the House of Representatives' 414-0 rebuke of the same fiscal blueprint earlier this year. Astonishingly, not a single Senate Democrat has voted in favor of any budget for three years, even as they refuse to offer a plan of their own. Democrats have claimed that three fig leaves mitigate this embarrassing spectacle:

(1) "The Senate has already passed a budget!" False. The Senate has not passed a budget. It "deemed" itself a budget as part of a separate piece of legislation over the summer. That law did not address tax policy, entitlement programs, and a slew of other items that a real budget entails. Harry Reid's hand-picked Senate Parliamentarian has confirmed Republicans' contention that the Senate has not fulfilled its basic budgetary obligations. This is the 1,113th day in a row that this has been the case.

(2) "Republican obstructionism!" False. Budgets explicitly cannot be filibustered. If Democrats introduced a budget, whipped their members, and called a vote, it would pass. Simple as that. Republicans couldn't do a thing to stop it. But that would require Democrats to put their long-term plans on paper, which they've been avoiding like the plague for entirely political reasons.

(3) "This vote is a gimmick!" If Democrats want to label an up-or-down vote on a Democratic president's budget a "gimmick," they're welcome to do so. In some ways, it's an appropriate description, given the pitiful gimmicks upon which Obama's budget relies -- even to achieve the fraudulent "savings" it claims. Had it not been defeated by Congress 513-0, Obama's budget would have added $11 Trillion to the gross national debt. It would literally never balance.

BREAKING: Democrat-Held Senate Rejects Obama's Horrific Budget, 99-0

I cant see ANY reason, why all of them shouldn't be thrown out. But before anyone can strictly blame Congress or the GOP in particular, remember its Obama's "Party" that doesn't even vote for his Budgets.

reply to post by sonnny1


It is a combination of factors.

a)too much DHS spending
b)too many wars
c)billionares and trillionares not paying anything close to what they should, and one could easily say THEY WANT THE SYSTEM TO COLLAPSE and are showing it.
d)free trade(no tariffs collected)
e)big business bailouts

welfare spending is not to be considered seriously because it is the last thing preventing total chaos and martial law.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

 

1. Debt cannot reasonably go on indefinitely.

I agree with you there, but it's the duty of the congress to pass taxes and spending laws that resolve this issue. Passing contradictory "debt ceilings" does nothing to improve the situation or solve the problem.


Even if the debt ceiling is ruled constitutional, here's the issue... The administration is bound by the constitution, and supreme court precedent to spend the money that is appropriated by congress. This was tested during the Nixon administration. You can google "Nixon and Impoundment" to find out more details. Meanwhile, the only money the administration gets is through taxes prescribed by congress. if the debt ceiling prevents the administration from borrowing money to make up the difference, the president is going to have to make a decision on which laws he wants to ignore... He's got to break at least one of them. This puts the president in a position, where, by necessity he must rule by decree, and either find a way to raise money without congressional approval, cut spending at his own discretion (in violation of law), or borrow money without congressional approval (violating the debt ceiling). Thus, the debt ceiling law is a recipe for presidential rule by decree. This is not a precedent that I'd like to see made.

The debt ceiling law is contrary to the constitution.

At the present time, the debt ceiling is being used by house republicans (who retain a majority only due to gerrymandering) as a means to avoid doing their duty and negotiating a budget with the senate and the president. It needs to go. If not through the normal legislative process, then by a supreme court case. Rule by decree is not an option for me.

Where is your budget plan Wrabbit?

The federal reserve will decide the budget and its timothy geithner at the helm.

Why can't we make geithner POTUS as well? I think he deserves the position!

In greece and italy former goldman sach executives ran the government directly. They became prime minister in order to balance the budget with endless austerity. I am not kidding here!

Giethner for 2016 president. The banker party will be officially born.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

You're taking an interesting position, but it is one I am probably misunderstanding.

The debt ceiling is an agreement by both houses that they won't spend more than $elebentyzillion. Certainly, that is their right as the houses are charged with deciding how much to spend. They then either decide to pass laws which don't spend more than that total, or they agree to pass them anyway after raising the ceiling. If both houses want to spend more, then the raise the debt ceiling and spend more.

In any event, debt ceiling or not, it takes both houses to agree on the spending. I don't see the problem, that's how it's supposed to work.

Meanwhile, the only money the administration gets is through taxes prescribed by congress. if the debt ceiling prevents the administration from borrowing money to make up the difference, the president is going to have to make a decision on which laws he wants to ignore...

Are you worried that Congress might pass a law that they don't allocate money for? Why would they do that? Congress, has in the past, "defunded" a program, which is telling the President "don't do that anymore." A program which requires money that doesn't have money, just doesn't get started.

The debt ceiling puts no limitations on the President, it just says "we're not going to spend more than such and such an amount." Deciding how much to spend is clearly the perogative of Congress.

At the present time, the debt ceiling is being used by house republicans (who retain a majority only due to gerrymandering) as a means to avoid doing their duty and negotiating a budget with the senate and the president.[

It's not the debt ceiling that is being used by the Republicans, it's the fact that they have a majority, and both houses need to agree.

It needs to go. If not through the normal legislative process, then by a supreme court case.

I can be reasonably sure that the Supremes will never touch it, unless, of course, Obama fills the bench with his best buds. Besides, the ceiling forces politicians to tell the country they want to spend even more. That's a good thing. I don't see a reason to get rid of it.

To my American cousins to the south ... " Together we stand ... divided we fall ". Remember that ... The cabal controlled media and politicians are employing one of the basics in psychological warfare ... divide and conquer. I find it concerning how easily members tear at each others throats in these forums when it comes to the old elephant n donkey show. TPTB and their corporate/military complex are the ones who make the puppets dance and entertain the masses. Bottom line is none of these shills give a rats ass about Joe public, his job,mortgage dept or health care needs. They have whored themselves to hell to get where they are and will do, say, and take all they can while at the trough. Those are the people whom TPTB want in office. The ones that are easily corruptible, can be caught in compromising situations enabling them to be manipulated through blackmail and bribes. Look at their backgrounds and family histories. They are the parasitic branch of the human race. Generations of them have know nothing else but this lifestyle. A day in the fields doing a real days work would kill them all. It's the end of democracy when the politicians who are trying to make a difference can't get funding or media coverage because they don't fit the Washington mold and never rise like the cream of the crop they are above the curdled milk below. Now by no means am I saying our parliamentary system is superior .... we just have more jerks to chose from.

Here is the first mascot for the newest party to be born soon. The banker party!



And you thought it is only about donkeys and elephants.

Timothy Geithner 2016. Join the banker party now!!!!!!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I'm actually a closet devotee of Libertarian ideology.

If I was American, I would have voted for Ron Paul. If the Libertarian party had a legitimate chance at winning the executive office, I would probably vote for it.

But the reason I call myself 'closeted' is due to other issues - mostly foreign - which afflict our era.

Ideally, capitalism works. Free markets work; trade agreements - especially the ones created by the IMF and world bank, are horribly exploitative, and need to be recalled.

But then there's the intractable (though still hardly recognized) crisis of our times: Islamism - that certainly justifies a modification in our political perspectives.

But I won't get into that. You first have to be acquainted with the nature and scope of that threat in order to come to a reasonable conclusion as to how to confront it, while still honoring basic libertarian principles.

Not an easy balance.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

He's got to break at least one of them. This puts the president in a position, where, by necessity he must rule by decree, and either find a way to raise money without congressional approval, cut spending at his own discretion (in violation of law), or borrow money without congressional approval (violating the debt ceiling). Thus, the debt ceiling law is a recipe for presidential rule by decree. This is not a precedent that I'd like to see made.

Just want to say beforehand that I respect your insight. However, the problem still remains; you've offered no solution. The choices you've established are: continued borrowing, adding to the national debt, which will sooner or later end up in further bailouts, nationalization of industry, etc. The threat here is giving greater powers to the federal government. Something I nor others want to see. On the other hand, you fret about the president ruling by presidential decree if he doesn't have the means to run the country, correct? So what, instead of a 'stimulus package', we come to terms with the reality of our fiscal situation, and and cut costs? Instead of adding to the illusion that we live in a healthy economy, we need austerity. We need cutting. We need to bite the bullet and understand that this is the only viable means we have of protecting our constitutional rights.

My advice is quite simple buy Silver - buy Gold.
Physical of course not those paper ETF's.

Let it all go over whatever BS cliff the mainstream media is crying about. Of course the Federal Reserve Banks & Wall St. will be crying bloody murder & Martial Law but if you protect yourself. Who gives a #?

reply to post by charles1952


First, thanks for taking the time to formulate a thoughtful reply. I'm definitely not worried about congress defunding programs or anything like that. That would be doing its job. I don't object to the fact that both houses must agree to budgets and taxes. I'm not a great fan of our system, but that's a debate for another thread.

Second, here is where I think you've gone off track:

Originally posted by charles1952
The debt ceiling puts no limitations on the President, it just says "we're not going to spend more than such and such an amount."

Actually, the debt ceiling is not an agreement among legislators not to spend. It is a limit upon how many bonds may be issued by the treasury department.... Bonds are issued to make up the difference between revenues and spending, both of which are mandated by acts of congress. The treasury is a part of the executive branch, with a head appointed by the president (and approved by the senate)... so I hope you'd

to finance the United States' involvement in World War I, Congress modified the method by which it authorizes debt in the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917.[58] Under this act Congress established an aggregate limit, or "ceiling," on the total amount of bonds that could be issued.

link

Bonds are issued to make up the difference between revenues and spending, both of which are mandated by acts of congress. Therefore, by simple math, the deficit is also mandated by congress, by the implication of its' power to tax and spend. The treasury is a part of the executive branch, with the secretary of the treasury appointed by the president (and approved by the senate)... so I hope you'd agree that in light of this fact, the debt ceiling is a real limitation on the administration, in the same way that the budget and tax laws are real limits on the administration.

This is only a problem if the Tax, Spending and Debt ceiling laws are in conflict with one another. In a simplified version our situation is this: Congress says, "Mr. president, we order your to spend 100 dollars and collect 50 in taxes, and you can also borrow 10." It's just mathematically inconstent. The other forty dollars has to come from somewhere, whether congress likes it or not.

The partisan aspect of this is really just a side issue for me, the sides could be reversed, and the scene would be just as stupid. Congress shouldn't be passing contradictory laws, and by simple logic, contradictory laws can't both be constitutional.

Since the beginning of the debt ceiling laws, congress has recognized this, and by tradition raised the debt ceiling every time they increased the deficit. Basically, they took respoinsibility for the laws they passed and adjusted the debt ceeiling accordingly. The past few years have been the only exception.

Well, maybe I'll elaborate on this tomorrow, but right now, I'm falling asleep. Goodnight.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


You know, if Ron Paul were president, this kind of thing would be well on its way to being fixed. He would have taken that fiscal cliff and built a bridge, then he would have made a map so that america knows EXACTLY where its going.
Really though, he would have greatly reduced unnecessary spending, thereby balancing the budget, and america would have a competing currency by now, slowly replacing the corrupt federal reserve system.
The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.

On the contrary I think that this budget may prove that your governement has finally understood how deep in the poo-poo your country is, financially speaking.

I also believe that it may show that they have decided to hyper-inflate you all out of debt. Risky, but it could work.

The down-side for them is they can't just "say" what they are trying to achieve, else it won't work, so they have to spend four years looking like dimwits to everyone.

Just an idea, anyway.

reply to post by IAMTAT


Yes but if they do that, step aside and go over the fiscal cliff, the democrats will be the ones to rescue and then secure future elections. Same thing with the student loan bill. It is pretty remarkable the thinking that goes into all of this. I say if we take away all the perks of working in Washington, then maybe the real people who really want to serve will step forward. We might then see another George Washington! We can only hope for the change, lol, little play on words there......

What did you really expect? Obama has learned he cannot start negotiating a deal from the middle. Facts, the debt ceiling will be raised and without any of the fight we had last time. The debt ceiling will continue to exist. Even if Obama managed to get rid of it, it does not fundamentally change anything Congress still controls the money. If anything one could argue the debt ceiling is unconstitutional because the President is required to pay the bills and the debt ceiling is a Congressional invention that can prevent that not a Constitutional one. The fiscal curb will not be averted, a small but important deal will be reached to reassure the markets it is going to be addressed and that the Government is serious about working on it and then Congress will adjourn for the winter break.

Originally posted by Allenb83
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

You know, if Ron Paul were president, this kind of thing would be well on its way to being fixed. He would have taken that fiscal cliff and built a bridge, then he would have made a map so that america knows EXACTLY where its going.
Really though, he would have greatly reduced unnecessary spending, thereby balancing the budget, and america would have a competing currency by now, slowly replacing the corrupt federal reserve system.
The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.

No Ron Paul would have slashed and burned the budget, creating European style austerity plunging us into depression. If you are really about balancing the budget then you should be all for going over the fiscal cliff, because that is exactly what it means and does. After that he would shoot laser beams out of his eyes and carved himself into Mt. Rushmore and and then release some rose fragranced farts for you adulation.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Your post reminded me of one of Lincoln's quotes:

"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave (Political Party #1) and half free (Political Party #2). I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other."

In many ways, society today is mirroring the society of the 19th century. We had a war with Mexico that was as equally polarizing as the war on terror today. This was followed by weak Presidents that did not lead the nation and allowed petty politics to interfere with the orderly governance of the country. This escalated until the nation was almost equally divided and extremely polarized in opinion about the key issue of the day. This eventually led to armed conflict, namely the American Civil War.

There are/were opportunities abound for cooler heads to prevail. We need(ed) compromise, but when each sides idea of compromise is "my way or the highway" then compromise is impossible.

This reminds me of another quote, this time from Shelby Foote in Ken Burns' Civil War documentary:
"It was because we failed to do the thing we really have a genius for, which is compromise. Americans like to think of themselves as uncompromising. Our true genius is for compromise. Our whole government's founded on it. And, it failed."

Each side appears to be insisting on getting everything they want to the exclusion of the other. This cannot work. What we will end up doing is passing some legislation that will delay the "fiscal cliff" for another few months, maybe as much as a year, and each side will go back to business as usual and nothing will be solved.

Politics today seem to revolve around "how long can we prolong this crisis so that we can continue to stay in, and accumulate, power?". Meanwhile, the country suffers real harm in that our governments vacillating causes doubt and confusion to the population at large, and business in general. No one want to invest in uncertain times.

The situation today is approaching a time that we, as a nation, will require a decision, any decision, even the wrong decision, just to remove the uncertainty of the times. No decision can ruin us, just as surely as the wrong decision, but at least with the wrong decision we will know where we stand. No decision leaves the whole country flailing in the wind...

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I agree, that is why the two politicrats parties we got are an elite on their own, our nation is run by an elite that corrupted money originates from Wall Street bankers and with money spreads around, you are right not regular American can be anything in this nation when it comes to politics only the two corrupted elite parties do.

Is been like that for a long time, squash the competition so the people have only two choices and those choices are very much bought and pay for.

Remember last year the scandal behind congress and Wall street insiders? I can not believe that with all the prof in front of the populations eyes of the biggest buy out of congress by Walls Street and people still defend the crocks, they still believe that the politicraps can fix anything and help anything.

It only shows that whatever conspiracy on political brainwashing in the America is true.

reply to post by sqorpius


Even if you do not vote, the bozos will keep been elected from the two main parties regardless.

We live in a corporate dictatorship, what we elect is what is given to us, chosen for us and bough and pay by those behind the government, so we the people still keep the illusion that America is still democratic and that still have a solid government system, but we know better, don't we?