has any president blocked a budget his whole term before ??

[washamericom]

just curious if any president and same party como in congress have ever failed to have a budget...

isn't that a pretty big part of running a house or business... or a life ?

will this be an issue in the presidential campaign ?


http://www.soundpartners.org/node/1742

 

[occupied]

The budget process we are familiar with is a failure since it became such an ideologically charged political football, we may never have a budget again, not that we really need one.

 

[washamericom]

The budget process we are familiar with is a failure since it became such an ideologically charged political football, we may never have a budget again, not that we really need one.

your occupy wall street avatar is really obnoxious... aren't there board rules prohibiting that ?? you made a good comment though..

 

[occupied]

The budget process we are familiar with is a failure since it became such an ideologically charged political football, we may never have a budget again, not that we really need one.

your occupy wall street avatar is really obnoxious... aren't there board rules prohibiting that ?? you made a good comment though..

I made that myself and am quite proud of it, no one has said anything about it.

 

[Rozman]

The budget process we are familiar with is a failure since it became such an ideologically charged political football, we may never have a budget again, not that we really need one.

Why need a budget when we have
an administration that doesn't give a shit
about how much money it spends.
Just look at how the CBO reported on
Obamacare last week....

 

[Liability]

His budget process is:

State a "need." (It doesn't matter whether the thing is needed or not in actuality.)

Go to Congress and have them write a check for the claimed "need."

End process.

 

[tyroneweaver]

just curious if any president and same party como in congress have ever failed to have a budget...

No... but w'ere about to find out.

 

[Londoner]

just curious if any president and same party como in congress have ever failed to have a budget...

isn't that a pretty big part of running a house or business... or a life ?

will this be an issue in the presidential campaign ?

You need to understand the theory of getting candy to the people.

The Dems want to give the candy to the people - they want a budget that serves the non-wealthy by giving them entitlements/programs that ease the burden on their wallet . . . which will enable them to consume more, which will help the economy. The GOP emphatically does not want this. They like to give the middle class credit cards rather than entitlements.

(Social Security allowed the middle class to consume at much higher levels for generations. Why? Because their parents were "off the books". Social Security virtually ended the poverty of the elderly - many of whom fought in wars and protected this nation. The GOP does not want any candy like Social Security to reach another generations of voters)

Once you give candy to the people, they will never let you take it away. The Republicans have been trying to kill Social Security and Medicare forever. They can't do it. FDR put 2 generations of Republicans in the wilderness because of the bond his programs forged with the middle class. He brought electricity and roads to rural America. He gave Ronald Reagan's father work during the depression. This is why Reagan campaigned for Truman - because the New Deal saved his family. The GOP does not want any of this sort of candy to reach the people. The GOP wants to help the wealthiest Americans keep the gains they've made since 1980 - when Reaganomics dismantled entitlements in order to give tax cuts to the wealthy; and when Reagan dismantled unions, trade barriers, and tariffs so that corporations could bypass American workers for Asian sweat shops . This is when middle class wages went down and household debt went up. You understand this right? Reagan gave corporations the ability to drive down labor costs: he helped corporation lower wages/benefits in order to boost their profits. The whole point of the postwar Republican ascendancy was to help business repeal the gains FDR gave to Labor. Surely you understand the deep tension between capital and labor.

Reagan had a problem, though.... because when you lower wages, consumers have less money to buy things and thereby keep the economy afloat. So what did Reagan do? He expanded credit/debt so that the middle class could keep consuming and thereby sustain the economy. That is, Reagaomics loaned the middle class the money they used to make in wages. Listen son. It was a perfect system: corporate profits (made possible by lower wages/benefits) went to banks, who then loaned the money to consumers at high interest. Brilliant. The capitalist gets more money on the front end because he pays lower wages. Then [wait for it] he makes a killing on the other end because he loans those profits to the working slob at HIGH interest. Morning in America was brought to you by Amex, Visa, and Master Card, and a whole variety of fancy debt gimmicks. Don't take my word for it: Look at household debt starting in the 80s: it exploded. The numbers don't lie. Postwar Americans paid for good and services primarily with hard cash. Post Reagan Americans paid for goods and services primarily through borrowing.

There were also some side benefits. Consider what happened when working Americans started to see lower and lower economic gains? Consider what happened when the FDR entitlement-fed, high-wage middle class became more and more financially insecure (because corporations were shipping their jobs to Asia, and Washington was cutting their benefits). They became more desperate, and needed Religion more .... which is why Reagan partnered with the moral majority. This is when the Conservatives started to get rid of their moderate wing in favor of radical religion. Republicans replaced wages with "hope" and prison beds. This is why religion and incarceration exploded since Reagan. It makes total sense. If you pay people less money and take away their entitlements, you will see more desperation. Some of that desperation can be handled with the promise of salvation and hope, but . . . not everybody can be controlled with the promise of hope . . . so you need to put them in cages. Look at the biggest welfare state - California. Look at what has happened since people were thrown off welfare, specifically the prison population.

Son: you need to understand the trajectory from LBJ's War on Poverty (i.e., help the poor) to Reagan's War on Drugs (i.e., put the poor in prison). The postwar years were about making poor Americans more productive by giving them jobs and higher wages, by putting them to work building roads, dams, and bridges - by giving them a safety net during market downturns. This is when America was at its most productive - and because of unions - the father could support his family on just one wage, so that the mother could stay home with the kids. The postReagan years were about cutting these people loose, and freeing corporate America to move jobs to sweatshops, and cutting safety nets in order to reduce taxes on the jet-set. This created a whole new class of desperate people. And desperate people are potentially more disruptive to the status quo, especially if you can't pacify them with religion. This is why the War on Drugs was such a great tool. Reagan used it to make law enforcement stronger/bigger so the State could manage the poverty created by unwinding the welfare state and high-wage system. Again: Reagan was put in office by large corporations who wanted cheaper labor and zero regulations. This why Reagan quadrupled the Pentagon budget and militarized the 3rd world - so he could "stabilize" the 3rd world and give his donors access to cheap labor and raw materials.

Regarding the Obama budget. Of course you understand why it could never be allowed to pass. Obama must not be allowed to give candy to the voter - which is what he tried to do; he tried to form a bond with the middle class through health care, but Big Insurance owns too many blue dog democrats (and 100% of the GOP). . . so the legislation became a giveaway to big corporations, who have a monopoly over health care. (There is only 1 or 2 health care providers in some states. This allows them to raise rates without being disciplined by market competition. Obama was trying to destroy this monopoly with the public option, which would have forced the handful of providers to offer better services to keep customers. Republicans went crazy because they are owned by Big Insurance (in the same way the Clinton democrats were owned by Wall Street).

An Obama budget which contains candy for the middle class can never be allowed to pass. The Republicans do not want the middle class to vote for entitlements and benefits. They want the middle class to vote out of fear of Iran and gay marriage and abortion and illegal immigration.

If the Obama budget passes, and it helps average Americans, than it will be harder for the GOP to capture those voters. This has been going on forever. Ronald Reagan - the governor who passed America's most liberal Abortion policy in California - partnered with Pat Robertson because he needed values/morality/fear to pry the middle class from the Liberal Welfare State.

Son, the GOP cannot allow a budget to pass. They can't let the sugar reach the lips of voters. They can't. They need to keep those voters scared that Obama is coming for their guns and grandma.

Wake up dear friend. Wake up.

 

[LockeJaw]

The budget process we are familiar with is a failure since it became such an ideologically charged political football, we may never have a budget again, not that we really need one.

your occupy wall street avatar is really obnoxious... aren't there board rules prohibiting that ?? you made a good comment though..

I made that myself and am quite proud of it, no one has said anything about it.

Wow. An occutard actually made something? You're evolving!

 

[washamericom]

The budget process we are familiar with is a failure since it became such an ideologically charged political football, we may never have a budget again, not that we really need one.

your occupy wall street avatar is really obnoxious... aren't there board rules prohibiting that ?? you made a good comment though..

I made that myself and am quite proud of it, no one has said anything about it.

it's really obnoxious...

 

[old navy]

Budgets bring fiscal discipline.

Why do a budget while China is in the banking business!

 

[occupied]

your occupy wall street avatar is really obnoxious... aren't there board rules prohibiting that ?? you made a good comment though..

I made that myself and am quite proud of it, no one has said anything about it.

it's really obnoxious...

There's others around here that are a lot more obnoxious than mine, BTW it is movie reference to John Carpenter's "they live". Check out 4:40.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lwlx3GnLGs]They Live - Obey, Consume, This is your God - YouTube[/ame]

Too obscure?

 

[candycorn]

The budget process we are familiar with is a failure since it became such an ideologically charged political football, we may never have a budget again, not that we really need one.

your occupy wall street avatar is really obnoxious... aren't there board rules prohibiting that ?? you made a good comment though..

I made that myself and am quite proud of it, no one has said anything about it.

You should be. Since it pisses off Wash, you know it's well done.

 

[washamericom]

just curious if any president and same party como in congress have ever failed to have a budget...

isn't that a pretty big part of running a house or business... or a life ?

will this be an issue in the presidential campaign ?

You need to understand the theory of getting candy to the people.

The Dems want to give the candy to the people - they want a budget that serves the non-wealthy by giving them entitlements/programs that ease the burden on their wallet . . . which will enable them to consume more, which will help the economy. The GOP emphatically does not want this. They like to give the middle class credit cards rather than entitlements.

(Social Security allowed the middle class to consume at much higher levels for generations. Why? Because their parents were "off the books". Social Security virtually ended the poverty of the elderly - many of whom fought in wars and protected this nation. The GOP does not want any candy like Social Security to reach another generations of voters)

Once you give candy to the people, they will never let you take it away. The Republicans have been trying to kill Social Security and Medicare forever. They can't do it. FDR put 2 generations of Republicans in the wilderness because of the bond his programs forged with the middle class. He brought electricity and roads to rural America. He gave Ronald Reagan's father work during the depression. This is why Reagan campaigned for Truman - because the New Deal saved his family. The GOP does not want any of this sort of candy to reach the people. The GOP wants to help the wealthiest Americans keep the gains they've made since 1980 - when Reaganomics dismantled entitlements in order to give tax cuts to the wealthy; and when Reagan dismantled unions, trade barriers, and tariffs so that corporations could bypass American workers for Asian sweat shops . This is when middle class wages went down and household debt went up. You understand this right? Reagan gave corporations the ability to drive down labor costs: he helped corporation lower wages/benefits in order to boost their profits. The whole point of the postwar Republican ascendancy was to help business repeal the gains FDR gave to Labor. Surely you understand the deep tension between capital and labor.

Reagan had a problem, though.... because when you lower wages, consumers have less money to buy things and thereby keep the economy afloat. So what did Reagan do? He expanded credit/debt so that the middle class could keep consuming and thereby sustain the economy. That is, Reagaomics loaned the middle class the money they used to make in wages. Listen son. It was a perfect system: corporate profits (made possible by lower wages/benefits) went to banks, who then loaned the money to consumers at high interest. Brilliant. The capitalist gets more money on the front end because he pays lower wages. Then [wait for it] he makes a killing on the other end because he loans those profits to the working slob at HIGH interest. Morning in America was brought to you by Amex, Visa, and Master Card, and a whole variety of fancy debt gimmicks. Don't take my word for it: Look at household debt starting in the 80s: it exploded. The numbers don't lie. Postwar Americans paid for good and services primarily with hard cash. Post Reagan Americans paid for goods and services primarily through borrowing.

There were also some side benefits. Consider what happened when working Americans started to see lower and lower economic gains? Consider what happened when the FDR entitlement-fed, high-wage middle class became more and more financially insecure (because corporations were shipping their jobs to Asia, and Washington was cutting their benefits). They became more desperate, and needed Religion more .... which is why Reagan partnered with the moral majority. This is when the Conservatives started to get rid of their moderate wing in favor of radical religion. Republicans replaced wages with "hope" and prison beds. This is why religion and incarceration exploded since Reagan. It makes total sense. If you pay people less money and take away their entitlements, you will see more desperation. Some of that desperation can be handled with the promise of salvation and hope, but . . . not everybody can be controlled with the promise of hope . . . so you need to put them in cages. Look at the biggest welfare state - California. Look at what has happened since people were thrown off welfare, specifically the he prison population.

Obama tried to form a bond with the middle class with health care, but the big insurance owns too many blue dog democrats . . . and so the legislation became a giveaway to big corporations, who have a monopoly over health care. (There is only 1 or 2 health care providers in some states. This allows them to raise rates without being disciplined by market competition. Obama was trying to destroy this monopoly with the public option, which would have forced the handful of providers to offer better services to keep customers. Republicans went crazy because they are owned by Big Insurance (in the same way the Clinton democrats were owned by Wall Street).

An Obama budget which contains candy for the middle class can never be allowed to pass. The Republicans do not want the middle class to vote for entitlements and benefits. They want the middle class to vote out of fear of Iran and gay marriage and abortion and illegal immigration.

If the Obama budget passes, and it helps average Americans, than it will be harder for the GOP to capture those voters. This has been going on forever. Ronald Reagan - the governor who passed America's most liberal Abortion policy in California - partnered with Pat Robertson because he needed values/morality/fear to pry the middle class from the Liberal Welfare State.

Son, the GOP cannot allow a budget to pass. They can't let the sugar reach the lips of voters. They can't. They need to keep those voters scared that Obama is coming for their guns and grandma.

Wake up dear friend. Wake up.

thank you father....


it did occur to me that it was the plan from the beginning. In the short term, economists broadly agree that the government has to spend far more money than it takes in. that’s because the economy is broken. private sector spending has collapsed, and a gap has been created between what the economy can produce and what it is producing. that gap, according to keynsian theories that are widely accepted, should be filled by government borrowing to prevent the economy from slumping further into the abyss. that will get people working and spending again, preventing a much steeper downturn, which could be much more damaging on the nation’s fiscal health.

As a result, most economists are not so concerned about the short-term costs of the stimulus spending, and the bank bailouts, which are making our current deficit so big. “we’ve known since keynes that short-term deficits should be thought of differently than long-term deficits,” as explained by alan uerbach, an economist at the berkeley, expressing a consensus view. “focusing so much on short term deficits is sort of nutty.”

this is why so many economists get exasperated by the debates in dc.

republicans, especially, have recently made a business out of conflating the long-term spending problem, the mid-term spending problems and the short-term spending explosion. these politicians speak of the bailouts to aig, the costs of new school buildings and the relatively distant entitlement crisis as if each category of spending was interchangeable. they are not. the real problems arises when the government deepens its debt in times of relative economic health, or set up spending programs that do not end, which this country has been doing for much of the last decade.

hence, no budget no chance of failure, the false dichotomy. obama is stalling any accountability, post election... like telling israel we'll have their backs... after the election.. i was just wondering if obama was the first "president to be so blatently irresponsible of relection purposes of politics.

are you british father ? i should say, are you living in u.k. now ??

 

[francoHFW]

The budget process we are familiar with is a failure since it became such an ideologically charged political football, we may never have a budget again, not that we really need one.

Why need a budget when we have
an administration that doesn't give a shit
about how much money it spends.
Just look at how the CBO reported on
Obamacare last week....

Of course this has happened before, when A-hole "un-American" (TIME) no compromise Pubs hold the house, dittohead.

Just listening to Rush saying the CBO had a "new look" at ACA and found it was a huge new cost disaster. TOTAL HORSESYTTE as ALWAYS! The CBO looks ahead ten years, so OF COURSE it cost more the more years after implementation are included, brainwashed dupe.. Also, the CBO doesn't recognize many VERY likely savings...

CHANGE THE CHANNEL- your "facts" are all BULLSHYTTE...

 

[Warrior102]

The budget process we are familiar with is a failure since it became such an ideologically charged political football, we may never have a budget again, not that we really need one.

You have to have a budget to run a household, assbrain.
You surely need one to run a country.

What an idiot...

 

[washamericom]

your occupy wall street avatar is really obnoxious... aren't there board rules prohibiting that ?? you made a good comment though..

I made that myself and am quite proud of it, no one has said anything about it.

You should be. Since it pisses off Wash, you know it's well done.

are you stalking me... ??

 

[washamericom]

The budget process we are familiar with is a failure since it became such an ideologically charged political football, we may never have a budget again, not that we really need one.

You have to have a budget to run a household, assbrain.
You surely need one to run a country.

What an idiot...

i remember a time when people could make their point without namecalling and general liberal nastyness. maybe not here.... it was a long time ago...

 

[Full-Auto]

I made that myself and am quite proud of it, no one has said anything about it.

You should be. Since it pisses off Wash, you know it's well done.

are you stalking me... ??

Nah, they take turns at stupidity. They are very good at it arent they?

 

[occupied]

The budget process we are familiar with is a failure since it became such an ideologically charged political football, we may never have a budget again, not that we really need one.

You have to have a budget to run a household, assbrain.
You surely need one to run a country.

What an idiot...

There is no difference between an omnibus spending bill AKA budget and a series of spending measures for various purposes. Our country operated for much of its history without the yearly budget fight.