Log in:  

Register

U.S. Politics

Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

01 May 2012 14:52

Scott SoCal wrote:Wait up... Starve the government? Seriously?

Perhaps you missed this....



http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/222767-cbo-sees-obama-budget-reducing-growth-in-long-term

This deficit spending/debt situation needs some attention, no?
Interesting how the CBO is now gospel to you ;)

But again, sorry, no matter how much you want to whine and moan about debts, deficits, etc, your guys created this situation, and you on the right never raised a whisper of complaint when Bush was running up the tab. The right has zero credibility on the deficits and debt, yet all you can do is whine endlessly about Obama. And then you want to put the right back into power, thinking that this time - this time - enacting the exact same policies as the Bush years will have the exact opposite effect. I don't know if the right is naive or gullible or just plain dumb. Although I also don't think it's about debts or deficits at all, considering the right only got religion on them once the black Muslim socialist who wants to take your car away while his death panels decide whether you live or die became pres.

Paul Ryan's budget? LOL.
User avatar VeloCity
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,351
Joined: 10 Sep 2009 16:17
Location: Washington, DC

01 May 2012 15:33

Scott SoCal wrote:Well, call the Ryan plan what you will. What has the dems put forward? Where does the debate begin? Over 1000 days since this government has produced a budget, a violation of the law btw, and what? Nothing but more govt.

Starve the govt? Not even close.


The US budget and appropriations cycle is a little more complicated than you make it sound. Just quickly from the top of my head:

Congress needs to pass a (nonbinding) concurrent resolution, as per the 1974 Budget Act. It's not signed by the President and will guide appropriations legislation (i.e. points of order, to challenge provisions that affect spending that exceeds limits set by the bicameral 'concurrent' resolution) In the absence of such a budget resolution, appropriations (actual spending bills, actual laws signed by the president, involving discretionary spending) continue be passed, (I believe reconciliation is not an option anymore) with any spending limits the parties see fit. The budget resolution doesn't affect Congress' ability to increase or decrease spending.

Authorizing committees affect the mandatory spending component, and they would have to alter formulas for earned benefits to reduce spending.

As per CRS:
It [budget resolution] represents a budget plan for the upcoming fiscal year and at least the following four fiscal years. As a concurrent resolution, it is not presented to the President for his signature and thus does not become law. Instead, when adopted by Congress, the budget resolution serves as an agreement between the House and Senate on a congressional budget plan. As such, it provides the framework for subsequent legislative action on the annual appropriations bills, revenue measures, debt-limit legislation, reconciliation legislation, and any other budgetary legislation. While the programmatic assumptions (i.e., the specific mix of revenue and spending policies that are assumed within the budget levels) are not binding, the totals and committee spending allocations may be enforced through points of order and through the budget reconciliation process


The US government worked before the budget act of 74 was passed. It aims to give a much clearer overview of total spending by US government and (make it easier to) set spending limits, through enforceable points of order when the spending bills make their way through the legislative bodies (it also created the Congressional Budget Office and the Senate and House budget committees and allowed for reconciliation). However, without it, the budget act and its concurrent resolutions, Congress can still limit spending, set its own spending limits and determine how to proceed financially.

As per CRS
The budget resolution was designed to provide a framework to make budget decisions, leaving specific program determinations to the Appropriations Committees and other committees with spending and revenue jurisdiction


Furthermore:
Congress did not complete action on a budget resolution for six fiscal
years (FY1999 in 1998, FY2003 in 2002, FY2005 in 2004, FY2007 in 2006, FY2011 in 2010, and FY2012 in 2011)

[...]

Currently, the budget resolution must include at least five fiscal years.


So the budget act of '74 only became relevant in the last 2 years? Are they breaking the law? It seems like it, because it is in the USC (Code, not Constitution).

Did it matter before/Does it matter now? I doubt it, because 4 times prior they failed to pass a non-binding concurrent budget resolution. The budget act 74 just doesn't really seem to specify what would/should happen when the concurrent resolution isn't passed. (probably unfathomable back in the day that not everything was filibustered) But since that resolution is just that, non-binding, it is difficult to envision what's lost when it's not passed.

The penalties? Nothing, besides that Congress doesn't have a framework agreement between the house and the senate with respect to the US budget. Points of order don't apply, so it's more difficult to keep appropriations committee in check. Appropriations/Authorization bills are still being passed, but given the absence of a 'joint' budget, or budget framework, the House and Senate will struggle to pass each others bills.

As per CRS
During the past 37 years, when Congress has completed action on a budget resolution, Congress adopted the budget resolution by
the target date only six times
, most recently in 2003 with the FY2004 budget resolution. Budget resolutions have been adopted, on average, almost 37 days after the target date


In 2011, they passed the Budget Control Act, which states that

[the budget control act] “shall apply in the Senate in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget” for fiscal years 2012 and 2013.


which means there are spending limits (as per that act) just as if there had been a budget from the senate budget committee, as per the budget act of 74 (amended in 85)

A budget is also always presented (views and estimates; ie wish list, guidance, non-binding) by the President, which is then dissected by the appropriate committees from March-April. They are currently marking up appropriations legislation in subcommittees in the House (they just received their 302b allocations) and in the Senate they are holding hearings to assess the budget as presented by the President.
User avatar Bala Verde
Senior Member
 
Posts: 7,119
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 02:32
Location: Chapel Hill, NC

01 May 2012 16:28

Yep, those fiscally-responsible Republicans.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/224677-republicans-no-offsets-for-extending-bush-rates

It is Republican Party orthodoxy that tax cuts do not need to be offset because of the additional tax receipts they spur through economic growth.
We believe in magical fairies.
User avatar VeloCity
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,351
Joined: 10 Sep 2009 16:17
Location: Washington, DC

01 May 2012 16:51

VeloCity wrote: Although I also don't think it's about debts or deficits at all, considering the right only got religion on them once the black Muslim socialist who wants to take your car away while his death panels decide whether you live or die became pres.


This is not true: religion was alive and well during the Bush years. So much so that more democratic christians begin flirting with spirituality and eastern religions, pantheism, etc. rather than be associated with the regressive fundamentalism then taking hold in the rhetoric coming from the far right. Obviously both Obama and Hillary were prepared to and forced to play that hand toward the middle.
aphronesis
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,004
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Brooklyn

01 May 2012 19:09

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/has-team-romney-forgotten-about-the-bush-years/2012/05/01/gIQAgQsvtT_blog.html

Has Team Romney Forgotten That The Bush Years Were Terrible?


Nope. The Bush years were good ones for Mitt Romney. Little wonder he's trying to bring them back.
User avatar VeloCity
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,351
Joined: 10 Sep 2009 16:17
Location: Washington, DC

01 May 2012 19:42

Bala Verde wrote:The US budget and appropriations cycle is a little more complicated than you make it sound. Just quickly from the top of my head:

Congress needs to pass a (nonbinding) concurrent resolution, as per the 1974 Budget Act. It's not signed by the President and will guide appropriations legislation (i.e. points of order, to challenge provisions that affect spending that exceeds limits set by the bicameral 'concurrent' resolution) In the absence of such a budget resolution, appropriations (actual spending bills, actual laws signed by the president, involving discretionary spending) continue be passed, (I believe reconciliation is not an option anymore) with any spending limits the parties see fit. The budget resolution doesn't affect Congress' ability to increase or decrease spending.

Authorizing committees affect the mandatory spending component, and they would have to alter formulas for earned benefits to reduce spending.

As per CRS:


The US government worked before the budget act of 74 was passed. It aims to give a much clearer overview of total spending by US government and (make it easier to) set spending limits, through enforceable points of order when the spending bills make their way through the legislative bodies (it also created the Congressional Budget Office and the Senate and House budget committees and allowed for reconciliation). However, without it, the budget act and its concurrent resolutions, Congress can still limit spending, set its own spending limits and determine how to proceed financially.

As per CRS


Furthermore:


So the budget act of '74 only became relevant in the last 2 years? Are they breaking the law? It seems like it, because it is in the USC (Code, not Constitution).

Did it matter before/Does it matter now? I doubt it, because 4 times prior they failed to pass a non-binding concurrent budget resolution. The budget act 74 just doesn't really seem to specify what would/should happen when the concurrent resolution isn't passed. (probably unfathomable back in the day that not everything was filibustered) But since that resolution is just that, non-binding, it is difficult to envision what's lost when it's not passed.

The penalties? Nothing, besides that Congress doesn't have a framework agreement between the house and the senate with respect to the US budget. Points of order don't apply, so it's more difficult to keep appropriations committee in check. Appropriations/Authorization bills are still being passed, but given the absence of a 'joint' budget, or budget framework, the House and Senate will struggle to pass each others bills.

As per CRS


In 2011, they passed the Budget Control Act, which states that



which means there are spending limits (as per that act) just as if there had been a budget from the senate budget committee, as per the budget act of 74 (amended in 85)

A budget is also always presented (views and estimates; ie wish list, guidance, non-binding) by the President, which is then dissected by the appropriate committees from March-April. They are currently marking up appropriations legislation in subcommittees in the House (they just received their 302b allocations) and in the Senate they are holding hearings to assess the budget as presented by the President.


Off the top of my head what is lost is the voting records (yay or nay) for the sitting senators. Undoubtedly a move by the Senate majority leader to protect his members from having to vote for or against something that will hurt them politically.

How nice. Political cover and expediency all at once by not doing their job.

Beyond that, you analysis looks great.
Scott SoCal
 

01 May 2012 20:47

I never saw this, but it's interesting from a historical perspective (I find).

If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did the Founding Fathers Back Them?

But there’s a major problem with this line of argument: It just isn’t true. The founding fathers, it turns out, passed several mandates of their own. In 1790, the very first Congress—which incidentally included 20 framers—passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. This law was then signed by another framer: President George Washington. That’s right, the father of our country had no difficulty imposing a health insurance mandate.

That’s not all. In 1792, a Congress with 17 framers passed another statute that required all able-bodied men to buy firearms. Yes, we used to have not only a right to bear arms, but a federal duty to buy them. Four framers voted against this bill, but the others did not, and it was also signed by Washington. Some tried to repeal this gun purchase mandate on the grounds it was too onerous, but only one framer voted to repeal it.


I never knew they were concerned enough to legislate on those issues in the 18th century.
User avatar Bala Verde
Senior Member
 
Posts: 7,119
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 02:32
Location: Chapel Hill, NC

01 May 2012 23:01

VeloCity wrote:Bankruptcy was never an option.


Yeah, we know. Fortunately, no one listened to you.

That's the plan. I'm starting to understand why you're called "conservatives" though. The world's a-changin. Deal with it.


Bankruptcy was never an option.


Sure it was. But given the UAW's influence at the White House once BO was elected then what you write became true.

Fortunately, no one listened to you


Fortunately for Ford, they chose not to listen to you and yours. And BTW, when Treasury dumps it's stock at a significant loss essentially giving GM a huge competitive advantage... and when Ford pays off their creditors without the federal help, which will you applaud?

That's the plan


Of course it is. So it really begs the question, other than pay off the UAW, why not let GM go?

The world's a-changin. Deal with it.


Yep, the more things change the more they stay the same. One of us is able to see how corrupt our govt has become, one of us refuses to even look.
Scott SoCal
 

02 May 2012 00:01

NY Times admits.......

Many critics view The Times as constitutionally unable to address the election in an unbiased fashion. Like a lot of America, it basked a bit in the warm glow of Mr. Obama’s election in 2008. The company published a book about the country’s first African-American president, “Obama: The Historic Journey.” The Times also published a lengthy portrait of him in its Times Topics section on NYTimes.com, yet there’s nothing of the kind about George W. Bush or his father.


According to a study by the media scholars Stephen J. Farnsworth and S. Robert Lichter, The Times’s coverage of the president’s first year in office was significantly more favorable than its first-year coverage of three predecessors who also brought a new party to power in the White House: George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan.


Going forward, she said, The Times should examine Mr. Obama’s record and campaign promises; monitor campaign messaging for deception; emphasize substantive policy matters over petty rhetorical combat; scrutinize the newly powerful “super-PAC” groups, and take care not to let polls overdetermine the coverage.

These are the right priorities. To date, The Times has delivered some clear-eyed coverage of the administration’s mixed record on the housing crisis, banks, the economy, Afghanistan and other issues. Now is the time to shift to a campaign coverage paradigm that compares promises with execution, sheds light on campaign operations and assesses the president’s promises for a second term.


I applaud The Times’s stated commitment to doing these kinds of stories. Readers deserve to know: Who is the real Barack Obama? And The Times needs to show that it can address the question in a hard-nosed, unbiased way.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/opinion/sunday/a-hard-look-at-the-president.html?_r=2

lol.

Readers deserved to know in 2008 as well, but I digress.
Scott SoCal
 

02 May 2012 00:25

Scott SoCal wrote:NY Times admits.......

Many critics view The Times as constitutionally unable to address the election in an unbiased fashion. Like a lot of America, it basked a bit in the warm glow of Mr. Obama’s election in 2008. The company published a book about the country’s first African-American president, “Obama: The Historic Journey.” The Times also published a lengthy portrait of him in its Times Topics section on NYTimes.com, yet there’s nothing of the kind about George W. Bush or his father.


You just figured out the NYT seems to like Obama?

"GW Bush: the historic failure of the 43rd white guy president"
Not done with my drink till I've crunched all the ice crew
User avatar Rip:30
Junior Member
 
Posts: 1,036
Joined: 29 Apr 2010 05:39

02 May 2012 01:04

Rip:30 wrote:You just figured out the NYT seems to like Obama?

"GW Bush: the historic failure of the 43rd white guy president"


Not at all. First time I've seen them admit it.

Classy book title.
Scott SoCal
 

02 May 2012 04:52

What the Republican party has become, in a nutshell.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fischer-grenell-resignation-huge-win-religious-right

Fischer could barely contain his glee, declaring it a "huge win" for the Religious Right because it means that they have forced Romney to back down and taught him that he cannot do anything like this again
User avatar VeloCity
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,351
Joined: 10 Sep 2009 16:17
Location: Washington, DC

02 May 2012 18:32

Uh oh,

GM Chairman Akerson to Newsmax: Bush, Obama Share Credit For Bailout Success

“Let me state a fact: The first $13 billion that was put in the company, George Bush, a Republican, put it in. The second [payment] came in with President Obama. So we had two administrations, two presidents of reasonably disparate points of view politically, economically, philosophically, decide that this is in the best interest of the American economy and American jobs.

“Now President Obama had the obligation to decide whether [the company] would go through bankruptcy or not, and therefore he was more involved in the restructuring of it. But in fact there were two separate efforts to make sure the company survived.”


Interesting observation.....

Akerson did say that the Treasury Department’s restraints over executive pay, including freezing the salaries of top executives at GM, does impede his company’s ability to compete.

“It makes it difficult but not impossible for us to run the company, because we have to compete in the marketplace for the most scarce resource and that is human talent,” he said.

“When I try to recruit someone I tell them this is not the typical company. We’re trying to save and restore an iconic American company that [otherwise] would have cost, by many different centers of thought, at least a million jobs. Why would you do that?



http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/akerson-bailout-general-motors/2012/05/01/id/437704
Scott SoCal
 

02 May 2012 19:08

Scott SoCal wrote:GM Chairman Akerson to Newsmax: Bush, Obama Share Credit For Bailout Success


Funny he did not mention Romney, who is now taking credit for the bailout.

Scott SoCal wrote:Interesting observation.....


Overpaid execs claiming they could do a better job if they were paid more. Interesting. :rolleyes:
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken
User avatar BroDeal
Senior Member
 
Posts: 13,320
Joined: 18 Mar 2009 00:41
Location: Above 5000 feet

02 May 2012 19:25

Scott SoCal wrote:Uh oh,

GM Chairman Akerson to Newsmax: Bush, Obama Share Credit For Bailout Success
Now that it turns out that the auto bailouts were a huge success, funny how they're trying to dilute Obama's credit. Just like the claim that killing bin Laden was Bush's doing. Hilarious. But at the same time, I thought the bailouts were a bad thing, cons? So why now so desperately trying to take some credit for them?

Sorry, some things you've got to just accept and move on. You're not going to gain any traction on the auto bailouts or bin Laden.
User avatar VeloCity
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,351
Joined: 10 Sep 2009 16:17
Location: Washington, DC

02 May 2012 19:38

Scott SoCal wrote:Uh oh,

GM Chairman Akerson to Newsmax: Bush, Obama Share Credit For Bailout Success



Interesting observation.....




http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/akerson-bailout-general-motors/2012/05/01/id/437704


Good to see that republicans feel vincicated about their, at the time, hugely unpopular, but nevertheless prescient, sound pro-market and growth inducing policy measures, while patting each other on the back for the boldness of their decisions. I am glad they didn't lose their spines, but despite massive opposition, plodded through and fought the good fight, for the sake of american businesses and employment, and prevailed in correcting the record; people opposing the bailout were plain wrong.

Now: newt Gingrich says... Gbye, prezobamz is a left wing radical and I am 4.3 million in debt, please help me get muneeez, otherwise other people won't get paid and they will think I am a freeloaderz, or I would have to work as a janitor in school.

Oh PS> did anyone read this, about Rmoney's deluded Bain capital buddy who lives in lalaland.

http://nyti.ms/ICIXyE

“A lot of people don’t realize that what happened in 2008 was nearly identical to what happened in 1929,” he says. “Depositors ran to the bank to withdraw their money only to discover, like the citizens of Bedford Falls” — referring to the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life” — “that there was no money in the vault. All that money had been lent.”


Needless to say

This stance, which largely absolves the banks, is not shared by many analysts.


And then this whopper:

At a nearby table we saw three young people with plaid shirts and floppy hair. For all we know, they may have been plotting the next generation’s Twitter, but Conard felt sure they were merely lounging on the sidelines. “What are they doing, sitting here, having a coffee at 2:30?” he asked. “I’m sure those guys are college-educated.” Conard, who occasionally flashed a mean streak during our talks, started calling the group “art-history majors,” his derisive term for pretty much anyone who was lucky enough to be born with the talent and opportunity to join the risk-taking, innovation-hunting mechanism but who chose instead a less competitive life. In Conard’s mind, this includes, surprisingly, people like lawyers, who opt for stable professions that don’t maximize their wealth-creating potential. He said the only way to persuade these “art-history majors” to join the fiercely competitive economic mechanism is to tempt them with extraordinary payoffs.


And that's why we need more income inequality, because currently, the wages for successful hedge fund managers are not yet high enough to entice art history majors to join their ranks.
User avatar Bala Verde
Senior Member
 
Posts: 7,119
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 02:32
Location: Chapel Hill, NC

02 May 2012 19:38

VeloCity wrote:Now that it turns out that the auto bailouts were a huge success, funny how they're trying to dilute Obama's credit. Just like the claim that killing bin Laden was Bush's doing. Hilarious. But at the same time, I thought the bailouts were a bad thing, cons? So why now so desperately trying to take some credit for them?

Sorry, some things you've got to just accept and move on. You're not going to gain any traction on the auto bailouts or bin Laden.


I'm not diluting anything. The Chairman of GM is.

But at the same time, I thought the bailouts were a bad thing, cons?


They were. In a generation or two so (when there's talk of the next bailout) you may even get it.

Sorry, some things you've got to just accept and move on.


You mean like it wasn't all Obama's doing?:)
Scott SoCal
 

02 May 2012 19:46

BroDeal wrote:Funny he did not mention Romney, who is now taking credit for the bailout.



Overpaid execs claiming they could do a better job if they were paid more. Interesting. :rolleyes:


Interesting in the sense that GM is now handicapped relative to available talent.

Get in bed with the feds and you get what you get. Ford saw this and said 'no thanks'.
Scott SoCal
 

02 May 2012 19:51

Bala Verde wrote:Good to see that republicans feel vincicated about their, at the time, hugely unpopular, but nevertheless prescient, sound pro-market and growth inducing policy measures, while patting each other on the back for the boldness of their decisions. I am glad they didn't lose their spines, but despite massive opposition, plodded through and fought the good fight, for the sake of american businesses and employment, and prevailed in correcting the record; people opposing the bailout were plain wrong.

Now: newt Gingrich says... Gbye, prezobamz is a left wing radical and I am 4.3 million in debt, please help me get muneeez, otherwise other people won't get paid and they will think I am a freeloaderz, or I would have to work as a janitor in school.


I don't think the final chapters of the book have been written just yet.
Scott SoCal
 

02 May 2012 19:56

Scott SoCal wrote:I don't think the final chapters of the book have been written just yet.


Chapter 11 has ;)
User avatar Bala Verde
Senior Member
 
Posts: 7,119
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 02:32
Location: Chapel Hill, NC

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Back to top