• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

U.S. Politics

Page 160 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bala Verde said:
Presidents don't "pass" or even sign budgets; Congress does, it passes a budget as a JOINT resolution; meaning no agreement between House and Senate = No budget. The last 'budget' is actually contained in a provision in the budget control act of 2011 (law/not resolution/passed by house and senate/signed by president) which also covers 2012 (and maybe 2013?; Sequester... etc)

Every President 'dutifully' submits his budget every year, so he "has" a budget; your so called wishlist, which generally gets ignored by Congress. The budget is set by Congress as a whole through approps and committees with jurisdiction over government programs (following the "farm bill" process?).

[power of the purse; basic function of Congress, checks and balances, you know the thing [Burkean] conservatives are so proud of because it's such an old, traditional institution that contains so much wisdom]

You could also argue the President doesn't "have" a budget because of the impasse in the House/Senate.

Look 1 Trillion pages back or so to find the explanation on how the US budget process works.
I'm aware of the process and you are correct.

Interesting how little support BO's budgets get from a D controlled Senate. Even more interesting that BO does not demand that the Senate take their requirement seriously. Even more interesting is the left could not care less and point to "specifics" in BO's campaign rhetoric as if he or Harry Reid have any intention of passing any part of it, except the class warfare part.

What do you think the chances of sequester actually are? Anything above zero?

Funny how past Presidents have somehow been able to work with congress to pass budgets. Even funnier is how little support this President's budget garbage receives from his own party. Funnier still are those believe that, if re-elected, things will be any different.

That's more or less the point I was attempting to make.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Interesting question. I wonder how much pressure the administration has placed on GM (if any) to develop that car. Wild guess? There's administration involvement.
Don't want to drag out the discussion too long, but one (or two) things:

1) Do you think USG also instructed banks (Bofa/JPM/Citi/Wells Fargo/GS/MS/USB etc) how to structure their organizations and what (line of) financial products to sell?

2) Why are other car companies in the same market, or, as per some reports, trying to enter the market. Did their respective governments tell them to go electric? Or, what seems to be the simpler explanation, because they see growth potential and profits. That's what businesses are in business for, right? (The profit consideration doesn't mean they always bet right though; the electric car might go the way of the humvee/dodo).

Also, in light of the Obama Administration's intentions to raise fuel standards [whether you agree or not with the policy] and the high/increasing oil prices around the world (since 2000, bar the dip during the crash), the case for electric cars didn't seem entirely unsubstantiated.

Involvement; if that means they communicated, especially the conditions and criteria for bail out money, then yes. But telling GM to build a particular car... I am not buying it (nor the car :D)
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
I'm aware of the process and you are correct.

Interesting how little support BO's budgets get from a D controlled Senate. Even more interesting that BO does not demand that the Senate take their requirement seriously. Even more interesting is the left could not care less and point to "specifics" in BO's campaign rhetoric as if he or Harry Reid have any intention of passing any part of it, except the class warfare part.

What do you think the chances of sequester actually are? Anything above zero?

Funny how past Presidents have somehow been able to work with congress to pass budgets. Even funnier is how little support this President's budget garbage receives from his own party. Funnier still are those believe that, if re-elected, things will be any different.

That's more or less the point I was attempting to make.
Sorry to break the bubble, but in reality, the failure to pass joint resolutions in Congress appear to be a reflection of a partisan a trend in US Congress in the last decade:

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Titles I-IX of P.L. 93-344, as amended; 2 U.S.C. 601-688) provides for the annual adoption of a concurrent resolution on the budget.

In 31 of the 37 years, Congress adopted at least one budget resolution for the fiscal year beginning in such year; 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).[1note] Congress also adopted a second budget resolution in seven of the 36 years. In two of these years (1979 for FY1980 and 1981 for FY1982), the House adopted the Senate version of the second budget resolution rather than adopting its own; no conference report, therefore, was necessary for these budget resolutions. In 1977, Congress adopted a third budget resolution for FY1977, further revising the previous first and second budget resolutions for FY1977.
Just to clarify:

elections 2000 ----President Bush-----
Senate 50GOP-50D Tie breaker VP Gore; Cheney
House 221GOP-212D (2 vacant)

elections 2002
Senate 51GOP-49D
House 229GOP-204D (2 vacant)

2002 No Budget for FY03 POTUS+Majority Congress GOP

elections 2004
Senate 55GOP-45D
House 232GOP-202D (1 vacant)

2004 No Budget for FY05 POTUS+Majority Congress GOP

elections 2006
Senate 49GOP-51D
House 202GOP-233D

2006 No budget for FY07 POTUS GOP +Majority Congress D

elections 2008---president Obama----

Senate 41GOP-59D
House 199GOP-236D

elections 2010
Senate 47GOP-53D
House 242GOP-193D

2010 No budget for FY11 POTUS D +Divided Congress D/GOP

2011 No budget for FY12 POTUS D +Divided Congress D/GOP

elections 2012 ---------President ?---------
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bala Verde said:
Sorry to break the bubble, but in reality, the failure to pass joint resolutions in Congress appear to be a reflection of a partisan a trend in US Congress in the last decade:
Yeah. Troubling for sure. Particularly in the last few years.

Maybe we don't need a budget. Perhaps it's better if tax payers are not at all clear on what this (or any) Presidents fiscal priorities are.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bala Verde said:
Don't want to drag out the discussion too long, but one (or two) things:

1) Do you think USG also instructed banks (Bofa/JPM/Citi/Wells Fargo/GS/MS/USB etc) how to structure their organizations and what (line of) financial products to sell?

2) Why are other car companies in the same market, or, as per some reports, trying to enter the market. Did their respective governments tell them to go electric? Or, what seems to be the simpler explanation, because they see growth potential and profits. That's what businesses are in business for, right? (The profit consideration doesn't mean they always bet right though; the electric car might go the way of the humvee/dodo).

Also, in light of the Obama Administration's intentions to raise fuel standards [whether you agree or not with the policy] and the high/increasing oil prices around the world (since 2000, bar the dip during the crash), the case for electric cars didn't seem entirely unsubstantiated.

Involvement; if that means they communicated, especially the conditions and criteria for bail out money, then yes. But telling GM to build a particular car... I am not buying it (nor the car :D)
1) Do you think USG also instructed banks (Bofa/JPM/Citi/Wells Fargo/GS/MS/USB etc) how to structure their organizations and what (line of) financial products to sell?
Not sure about the comparison. Many of the banks mentioned were forced to take the bailout money. Some of the products sold were regulated out of existence. Feds had a heavy hand in lending/capital restrictions... so yeah. There was instructions to banks that were new.

2) Why are other car companies in the same market, or, as per some reports, trying to enter the market. Did their respective governments tell them to go electric? Or, what seems to be the simpler explanation, because they see growth potential and profits. That's what businesses are in business for, right? (The profit consideration doesn't mean they always bet right though; the electric car might go the way of the humvee/dodo).
A financially solvent company like Nissan developing and selling the Leaf is a little different than a financially insolvent company like GM making that investment.

Also, in light of the Obama Administration's intentions to raise fuel standards [whether you agree or not with the policy] and the high/increasing oil prices around the world (since 2000, bar the dip during the crash), the case for electric cars didn't seem entirely unsubstantiated.
I'm only left wondering why the Volt was not designed with miniature high-output windmills and solar panels:D

But telling GM to build a particular car... I am not buying it (nor the car :D)
Maybe not telling them they had to build it... but sweetening the bailout deal if they did (tax subsidies for end-users, for example).
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
That is awesome. Can you please remind everyone when the last time Obama has actually had or passed a budget?
Sure.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview

A WSJ breakdown.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204795304577221094233504880.html

And what do the Rs do?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/16/senate-budget-jeff-sessions_n_1522643.html

This vote, on a Potemkin "Obama Budget," is not intended to be taken seriously. It's a stunt designed to get a slag into the newscycle, and they tend to work. What happens is a Republican legislator presents a "budget proposal" that's designed to be a satirical presentation of an "Obama budget." Democrats don't vote for it, because they recognize that it bears no resemblance to their budgetary preferences. Back in March, it was Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) who got the Harlequin role in this bit of legislative commedia dell'arte.
Yep. Serious people, those Rs.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
FoxNews, making **** up to distort Obama's record in the worst possible way yet again.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/fox-news-unemployment-obama-fail.php?ref=fpa

Little wonder FN viewers are so out of touch with reality.
Here's the important part;

The standard measure of unemployment (U-3) when Obama took office was 7.9 percent. Now it’s 8.1 percent.

The broader measure of unemployment (U-6) when Obama took office was 14.2 percent. Now it’s 14.7 percent.
How's this for misleading:

Payrolls rose less than projected in August and the unemployment rate was unexpectedly driven down by Americans leaving the labor force, boosting the odds of additional Federal Reserve easing to spur a faltering recovery.
The jobless rate fell from 8.3 percent as 368,000 Americans left the labor force.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-07/payrolls-in-u-s-rose-96-000-in-august-jobless-rate-falls.html

So, in August, 96,000 net jobs while 368,000 left the workforce and unemployment falls from 8.3 to 8.1%. Fuzzy math.

And yet the administration says we are headed in the right direction.

Once again, misdirection is in no way concentrated just on the right.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
Whoa!! You mean there's gotcha and game playing in politics?

Senate voting on Obama's proposed budget, May, 2011 97-0.
Senate voting on a facsimile of porposed budget 2012 99-0.

The 2012 budget didn't get a single house vote either, 414 - 0.

Neither side appears serious from where I sit.
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,441
0
0
Rip:30 said:
We have a gross receipts tax here. It's much more than a sales tax as almost any income comes under it. Doctors are not even exempt. So don't get seriously ill here cause we run most of the good ones off. It does vary by county, like say for example in Santa Fe and Santa Fe county, the tax is almost 9% (really 8.9...something ridiculous). If I get work in Santa Fe, not something that's going well right now, but say I scored $1000 day rate to take pictures of the Indian Market for Magnum. That's $90 dollars to the state not counting state income, business property, social security and federal.

Ok fair enough, we all pay right? Nope. The film industry is exempt. So let's say that Jeff Bridges got paid 10 million to act in True Grit. Half of it was really film here, but lets say for simplicity that all of it was. Does Mr. Bridges own the state $900,000 in taxes. No. Not a dime. This is a big D state and this exemption was ushered through the D controlled state legislature. Tax break for the rich and famous baby.:D

So I really don't want here about tax breaks for millionaires that already exist in the current codes. What planet have you been living on?

My apologies to Mr. Bridges for using him as an example for the otherwise fine work.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Here's the important part;



How's this for misleading:





http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-07/payrolls-in-u-s-rose-96-000-in-august-jobless-rate-falls.html

So, in August, 96,000 net jobs while 368,000 left the workforce and unemployment falls from 8.3 to 8.1%. Fuzzy math.

And yet the administration says we are headed in the right direction.

Once again, misdirection is in no way concentrated just on the right.
Let's put unemployment trends in proper context:

http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/tag/bikini-graph/

Could be better, but looks to me like things improved significantly starting right about the time Obama took office. Wonder what those graphs would have looked like if there had been no stimulus, no auto bailout, etc, as Romney and the Rs would've preferred?
 
Apr 29, 2010
1,036
0
0
BillytheKid said:
We have a gross receipts tax here. It's much more than a sales tax as almost any income comes under it. Doctors are not even exempt. So don't get seriously ill here cause we run most of the good ones off. It does vary by county, like say for example in Santa Fe and Santa Fe county, the tax is almost 9% (really 8.9...something ridiculous). If I get work in Santa Fe, not something that's going well right now, but say I scored $1000 day rate to take pictures of the Indian Market for Magnum. That's $90 dollars to the state not counting state income, business property, social security and federal.

Ok fair enough, we all pay right? Nope. The film industry is exempt. So let's say that Jeff Bridges got paid 10 million to act in True Grit. Half of it was really film here, but lets say for simplicity that all of it was. Does Mr. Bridges own the state $900,000 in taxes. No. Not a dime. This is a big D state and this exemption was ushered through the D controlled state legislature. Tax break for the rich and famous baby.:D

So I really don't want here about tax breaks for millionaires that already exist in the current codes. What planet have you been living on?

My apologies to Mr. Bridges for using him as an example for the otherwise fine work.

TL;DR there are already huge tax breaks at the fed and state level, therefore further reductions for only certain brackets is OK?
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,441
0
0
Rip:30 said:
TL;DR there are already huge tax breaks at the fed and state level, therefore further reductions for only certain brackets is OK?
The Dems have historically levied targeted tax increases at the wealthy.
Directly or indirectly.

I also question the accuracy of the press release. They even say they can only "estimate" his income. Yet the headline you proclaim says it is a $2 Billion tax break.

You really have to look at such claims as on the exagerated side as I rounded up in my example. As far as the priciple of targeted tax breaks goes, in general, the answer would be no, but either by tax redux or bail out, it can all add up to the be much the same.

A national sales tax would be the best, but the transition and practicality would be difficult.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
Let's put unemployment trends in proper context:

http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/tag/bikini-graph/

Could be better, but looks to me like things improved significantly starting right about the time Obama took office. Wonder what those graphs would have looked like if there had been no stimulus, no auto bailout, etc, as Romney and the Rs would've preferred?
Maybe you can explain how in August the unemployment rate drops when over three times as many people leave the work force as are hired into it?

'splain it to me please.



GM would be better in the long run had they gone through a normal BK. All stakeholders would have suffered... you know, "shared responsibility" not to mention GM would not be into the US taxpayer some 35 Billion.

Stimulus? You've had stimulus or the equivalent every year. 3.72 Trillion in 2010, 3.63 Trillion in 2011, 3.8 Trillion 2012, looks like spending in 2013 will be around 3.8 Trillion. The stimulus level spending was never dialed back. Ain't that grand? Hell, now even the Germans are wondering if we can pack back our debt.

Germany Says 'Great Uncertainty' About US Debt

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48982485
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rip:30 said:
TL;DR there are already huge tax breaks at the fed and state level, therefore further reductions for only certain brackets is OK?
If he's getting a tax break of 2 Billion, I wonder how much he pays?

Maybe you ought to be thankful the old man invests in building his casinos, employees umpteenthousands of people and by any measure, pays huge sums in taxes.

I guess that's not good enough. Off with his head.:rolleyes:
 
Jul 17, 2009
4,161
1
0
So Israel is going to tell us who to vote for now? And the religious right buys their front. Sucker born every day
 
Boeing said:
So Israel is going to tell us who to vote for now? And the religious right buys their front. Sucker born every day
Oh no, don't you know that Netayahu recently told congress (from whom he got the most standing ovations ever given one by the house) that "Israel does not interfere with US internal affairs"?

So there you have it, enough said. Israel does not get involved with US domestic business. Now, let's move on. :rolleyes:
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Maybe you can explain how in August the unemployment rate drops when over three times as many people leave the work force as are hired into it?

'splain it to me please.
The private sector is not doing great but not doing too badly, either. It's the public sector - the sector that you guys want to destroy - that's taking the brunt of the job losses. So really, you should be happy about the high unemployment numbers, as it means that government at all levels is shrinking. Why aren't you happy about that? It's what you guys keep saying you want.

GM would be better in the long run had they gone through a normal BK. All stakeholders would have suffered... you know, "shared responsibility" not to mention GM would not be into the US taxpayer some 35 Billion.
This has been explained a thousand times.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/06/autos/auto-bailout/index.html

See that section, "What would've happened without the bailouts?" Read it. Now imagine Romney in charge. Then imagine the unemployment figures that you so bemoan if we'd done what Romney wanted to do.

Stimulus? You've had stimulus or the equivalent every year. 3.72 Trillion in 2010, 3.63 Trillion in 2011, 3.8 Trillion 2012, looks like spending in 2013 will be around 3.8 Trillion. The stimulus level spending was never dialed back. Ain't that grand?
Basic economics: government spends while times are bad to kick-start the economy, then deals with deficits/debt when the economy is back on track. Things are not yet back on track- getting there, but not there yet.

Again, let's imagine Romney/Ryan policies were the rule of the day, austerity all around - what a ****ing disaster that would've been. Would've essentially ruined the economy.
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
Boeing said:
So Israel is going to tell us who to vote for now? And the religious right buys their front. Sucker born every day
It is interesting that Israel is trying to get the U.S. to set a deadline for Iran, after which military force will be used. Basically they are trying to maneuver the U.S. into a war.

One thing is sure. Romney will attack Iran if he is elected. Undoubtedly he will used the tried and true Bush approach for such things: Lower taxes while waging a war, resulting in a bankrupt government. The conservatives will cheer him on all the way then blame the poor sucker who is elected afterward for the expenditures required to clean up the mess.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
The private sector is not doing great but not doing too badly, either. It's the public sector - the sector that you guys want to destroy - that's taking the brunt of the job losses. So really, you should be happy about the high unemployment numbers, as it means that government at all levels is shrinking. Why aren't you happy about that? It's what you guys keep saying you want.

This has been explained a thousand times.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/06/autos/auto-bailout/index.html

See that section, "What would've happened without the bailouts?" Read it. Now imagine Romney in charge. Then imagine the unemployment figures that you so bemoan if we'd done what Romney wanted to do.

Basic economics: government spends while times are bad to kick-start the economy, then deals with deficits/debt when the economy is back on track. Things are not yet back on track- getting there, but not there yet.

Again, let's imagine Romney/Ryan policies were the rule of the day, austerity all around - what a ****ing disaster that would've been. Would've essentially ruined the economy.
The private sector is not doing great but not doing too badly, either.
Wow. This is a graph of the labor participation rate since January '02.



Another chart... I'll let you pick out some things that are alarming;



Notice the direction of all three lines (currently) and see if it matches up anywhere else on the chart. Uh oh...

Stating the private sector to be anything other than suffering is not accurate.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2012/09/august-employment-report-96000-jobs-81.html

It's the public sector - the sector that you guys want to destroy - that's taking the brunt of the job losses.
Who's advocating destroying the public sector? I must have missed that.

You know... if governments administrators had a brain cell, which most don't, they would have realized that when the private sector was shedding 800,000 jobs per month that a couple of thing were gonna happen. 1) There were going to be huge shortfalls in public revenue, and 2) They would have to start seriously cutting expense right away. So what happened? Federal stimulus money went to put off the inevitable trimming of public employees. A REALLY STUPID MOVE on team Obama's part.

Today's news cycle is more of the same: Chicago teachers union has their membership biting the hand that feeds them. Eventually they will win and Rham is going to come in and slash teaching jobs. Unlike the Federal Govt, Rham can't print more money to fix his $1 Billion dollar short fall. So in that sense, the shedding of public teacher will contribute to unemployment. Who's fault? Eh, ummm,... well, never mind.

I have read your CNN article. I disagree with the conclusions. If GM needs another bailout maybe you'll start to see why the bailout was not the best way forward.

Basic economics: government spends while times are bad to kick-start the economy,
More awesomeness on your part:) Were you not arguing that (agreeing with that rocket scientist Krugman) the 'stimulus' didn't go far enough? That we should have spent two or three times as much? Well, it looks like we actually have. The stimulus was never dialed back out of the budget.

Hmmmm. I wonder why our economy still sucks?

It's estimated by 2020 (which is not very far off) our debt service will exceed a Trillion annually. More than Medicare/Medicaid. Brilliant.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts