PDA

View Full Version : Day #1,037 ...



LWW
03-01-2012, 08:22 AM
... without a budget from the senate demokrooks.

Soflasnapper
03-01-2012, 11:31 AM
Are they 100% of the seats? Do they have 60 seats? Have they ever had 60 seats during this period of time, and if so, for how long, in your opinion?

Of course, without A budget, no expenditures from the Treasury by the government are lawful. So we have A budget, and have had several BUDGETS, as codified by continuing resolution passage by both houses of Congress.

What you refer to is a budget passed in the normal way in the Senate. What you do not refer to is the GOP's now universal trick that to proceed to debate on any budget bill is filibustered right at the top of the process. You need the 60 votes for cloture to START THE DEBATE (not just to end the debate, although they do that also). It's not surprising that given the need for 60 votes to START DEBATING ANY BUDGET BILL, it has not been met, as the GOP requires lock-step voting 'nay' from its Senate members (and they almost always had more than the 40 nays to block bills from consideration).

cushioncrawler
03-01-2012, 03:31 PM
The fundamentalists of the usofa constitution are sound.
mac.

Stretch
03-01-2012, 06:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are they 100% of the seats? Do they have 60 seats? Have they ever had 60 seats during this period of time, and if so, for how long, in your opinion?

Of course, without A budget, no expenditures from the Treasury by the government are lawful. So we have A budget, and have had several BUDGETS, as codified by continuing resolution passage by both houses of Congress.

What you refer to is a budget passed in the normal way in the Senate. What you do not refer to is the GOP's now universal trick that to proceed to debate on any budget bill is filibustered right at the top of the process. You need the 60 votes for cloture to START THE DEBATE (not just to end the debate, although they do that also). It's not surprising that given the need for 60 votes to START DEBATING ANY BUDGET BILL, it has not been met, as the GOP requires lock-step voting 'nay' from its Senate members (and they almost always had more than the 40 nays to block bills from consideration).

</div></div>

He's not complaining, he's bragging. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif St.

LWW
03-01-2012, 06:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I always and on all occasions 'slavishly defend dear leader,'</div></div>

LWW
03-01-2012, 06:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are they 100% of the seats? Do they have 60 seats? Have they ever had 60 seats during this period of time, and if so, for how long, in your opinion?</div></div>

What possible difference does that jibba jabba have to do with anything.

Here's a clue ... the R's passed a budget without 60 seats, in fact they passed a budget without 50 seats.

Put down the spoon bro.

Qtec
03-02-2012, 01:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the R's passed a budget without 60 seats, in fact they passed a budget without 50 seats. </div></div>

LOL. You just made his point because to pass a budget without 50 seats,they must have have Dem support. Something Obama has never had.

McConnell's "Single Most Important" goal: Defeat Obama (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FirI3_G_0JM&feature=related)

Q

Soflasnapper
03-02-2012, 11:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I always and on all occasions 'slavishly defend dear leader,'</div></div> </div></div>

Thankfully, even as you constructively lie with that quote, the truth of what I really said always accompanies your misrepresentation.

See those apostrophes around that phrase? Used in this manner, these are so-called scare quotes.

Definition of scare quotes:

Quotation marks used around a word or phrase not to indicate a direct quotation but to suggest that the expression is somehow inappropriate or misleading.

Scare quotes are often used to express skepticism, disapproval, or derision

Example: Examples and Observations:

"The real risk is that health care reform will be undermined by 'centrist' Democratic senators who either prevent the passage of a bill or insist on watering down key elements of reform. I use scare quotes around 'centrist,' by the way, because if the center means the position held by most Americans, the self-proclaimed centrists are in fact way out in right field."
(Paul Krugman, "Health Care Showdown." The New York Times, June 22, 2009)

Soflasnapper
03-02-2012, 11:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are they 100% of the seats? Do they have 60 seats? Have they ever had 60 seats during this period of time, and if so, for how long, in your opinion?</div></div>

What possible difference does that jibba jabba have to do with anything.

Here's a clue ... the R's passed a budget without 60 seats, in fact they passed a budget without 50 seats.

Put down the spoon bro. </div></div>

People of both parties have passed budgets without 60 votes. Why? Because having 60 Senate seats is rare, and passing budgets is an annual event. I should say, used to be an annual event.

But that was before one of the parties decided to filibuster motions to proceed to debate (an abuse on steroids, as the filibuster is supposed to be used when MORE debate is necessary, not to prevent the debate from even beginning).

Your claim they passed a budget without 50 seats makes no sense and is impossible. If by that phrase you mean they had less than 50 seats. Because if they had less than 50 seats in the 100 seat Senate, the Democrats had the majority, and they would have been the ones who passed the Senate budget bill.

LWW
03-02-2012, 03:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the R's passed a budget without 60 seats, in fact they passed a budget without 50 seats. </div></div>

LOL. You just made his point because to pass a budget without 50 seats,they must have have Dem support. Something Obama has never had.

McConnell's "Single Most Important" goal: Defeat Obama (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FirI3_G_0JM&feature=related)

As usual, you are wrong.

There is a budget from the house ... Dingy Harry Reid refuses to allow it to come to a vote.
Q




</div></div>

LWW
03-02-2012, 03:36 PM
You really don''t know very much for a guy who thinks he knows a lot.

Soflasnapper
03-02-2012, 04:49 PM
I do know a lot. I do not know everything, of course.

So I eagerly await reading how the GOP could have passed a budget in a 100-seat Senate without having 50 seats. Unless you meant, didn't have 50 VOTES (but still had 50 seats), or unless you meant in the sub-50 states days of the Senate.

LWW
03-03-2012, 03:52 AM
It's easy ... they took an (R) house budget and got a (D) majority senate to allow it to come to a vote.

The demokrook party senate membership has not always been populated by seditious hyper-partisan moonbats ... this is a very recent thing in our history.

DiabloViejo
03-03-2012, 02:37 PM
The junta leader has spoken! He is worried about the demokrook, seditious hyper-partisan moonbats, and their doublethinking, doublespeaking, cabal of evil!

http://paulboylan.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/banana-head-gif1.gif

Soflasnapper
03-04-2012, 10:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's easy ... they took an (R) house budget and got a (D) majority senate to allow it to come to a vote.

The demokrook party senate membership has not always been populated by seditious hyper-partisan moonbats ... this is a very recent thing in our history.
</div></div>

Generally, such a vote on a House budget is allowed when it fails. The Senate is an arrogant place, and they are not going to generally take the House's version without changing it. Personally, I doubt it happened, and it could only have happened with a GOP House majority and a Democratic Party Senate majority, which was a rare bird indeed. If you're talking about the Jeffords mutiny time, the only time this was possible, I still doubt it ever occurred. Prior to his shift, the Senate was 50-50, with the Dems given nominal majority status without majority control of the committees by the negotiations that occurred.

Soflasnapper
03-05-2012, 07:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">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. But they also know that Senate Dems have a lot of vulnerable incumbents this year. And they’d like nothing more than to force them to take an unpopular and divisive vote on abstract tax and spending priorities, when the economy’s still weak and deficits and debt are eye-popping. It would go a long way toward nullifying the Republicans’ calamitous vote for Paul Ryan’s budget, and that’s ultimately what the talkers on cable news are after. </div></div>

Sev
03-05-2012, 07:12 AM
A balanced budget amendment would bugger their spending priorities.

Soflasnapper
03-05-2012, 10:51 AM
Opinions vary on that situation.

Plenty of conservatives oppose the BBA, on the theory that it would end up mandating very high tax increases as its flip side.

Sev
03-05-2012, 11:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Opinions vary on that situation.

Plenty of conservatives oppose the BBA, on the theory that it would end up mandating very high tax increases as its flip side. </div></div>

Not if in conjunction you repeal the 16th amendment.

Soflasnapper
03-05-2012, 12:35 PM
That wouldn't get it done.

It would only push the far higher taxes required onto a different source, which in the end, as we know, is the people anyway, through whatever Rube Goldberg scheme it's rigged.

Higher tariffs? Higher end user prices for imported goods. And etc.

Soflasnapper
03-06-2012, 05:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's easy ... they took an (R) house budget and got a (D) majority senate to allow it to come to a vote.

The demokrook party senate membership has not always been populated by seditious hyper-partisan moonbats ... this is a very recent thing in our history.
</div></div>

As I've pointed out above, there is only a limited set of recent years in which this could have possibly taken place.

Surely you can point to which year this was? Buehler?