OFF THE CLIFF!

[heironymouspasparagus]

So are we going to change the debate and attempt to push the idea that there is now "no such thing" as the budgeting process or requirement? 

Article I, section 9, clause 7 of The Constitution of the United States provides: "[n]o money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time." 

In addition, Article I, section5, clause 2, of the Constitution reserves to each House of Congress the authority to determine the rules governing its procedures. The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 forms the requirement, and, The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (the Budget Act), which contains several titles and sections that affect the internal procedures of the House and Senate.  The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Act of 1985 imposes concequences to the development of uncontrolled spending in the event that a budget is not ratified.

If the new way to defend uncontrolled spending is to push the idea that budgets aren't important, and that congress has no responsibility to produce a budget, I doubt you'll get much traction.

You just can't resist the temptation to "Fox-ify" stuff can you?  First sentence - YOUR words, not mine...what I actually DID say, as reminder - "There is no such thing as bringing a permanent budget to the floor of the Senate for debate - nor the House for that matter."

Not what you are trying to change it into.  Yes, the budget process is significant and important - not just in Federal government, but business and personal life.  But that is not what you said, either...your complaint was a disparagement that Reid had not brought a budget to the floor for a vote.  Reminder:  "He is everything that is wrong with Congress.  He will not bring a permanent budget to the floor of the senate for debate, not his, not the president's, nor any of the three passed by the house."

Additionally, the Senate is not really the ones responsible for initiating spending bills, but since the House has abdicated their responsibility, the Senate presented a bill for them to adopt if they wanted - then it could be, by slight of hand, said to originate in the House....heard the term for that the other day and forgot... blue ticket???  or something...

As for not bringing the House passed bills to a vote, well that was a whole lot like Boehner not bringing up a bill to vote that probably would have passed, but not without the 30 or 40 hard core obstructionists.  He didn't want to lose the job as Speaker.

[Gaspar]

You just can't resist the temptation to "Fox-ify" stuff can you?  First sentence - YOUR words, not mine...what I actually DID say, as reminder - "There is no such thing as bringing a permanent budget to the floor of the Senate for debate - nor the House for that matter."

Not what you are trying to change it into.  Yes, the budget process is significant and important - not just in Federal government, but business and personal life.  But that is not what you said, either...your complaint was a disparagement that Reid had not brought a budget to the floor for a vote.  Reminder:  "He is everything that is wrong with Congress.  He will not bring a permanent budget to the floor of the senate for debate, not his, not the president's, nor any of the three passed by the house."

Additionally, the Senate is not really the ones responsible for initiating spending bills, but since the House has abdicated their responsibility, the Senate presented a bill for them to adopt if they wanted - then it could be, by slight of hand, said to originate in the House....heard the term for that the other day and forgot... blue ticket???  or something...

As for not bringing the House passed bills to a vote, well that was a whole lot like Boehner not bringing up a bill to vote that probably would have passed, but not without the 30 or 40 hard core obstructionists.  He didn't want to lose the job as Speaker.

Sorry.  As usual I failed to recognize that you would parse.
The House has passed and sent 3 budgets to the Senate.  The president has presented two budget proposals.
The Senate's duty would be to bring those to the floor for debate, or kick them back to the house with changes.  
I know why this didn't happen.  Can you figure it out?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Sorry.  As usual I failed to recognize that you would parse.
The House has passed and sent 3 budgets to the Senate.  The president has presented two budget proposals.
The Senate's duty would be to bring those to the floor for debate, or kick them back to the house with changes.  
I know why this didn't happen.  Can you figure it out?

Not parsing at all.  It's called "English"...the predominant language of the land (for now....) and when you say one thing but mean another, well don't be surprised if the message is muddied.  Like the "joke" - that really isn't - in technical circles; "oh, no...you did what I said instead of what I meant..."  With hands to head and a distressed look upon the face.  (You can't possibly be this imprecise in your business dealings and be as successful as you imply.  Or do you only sell to the Fox-ify types in Oklahoma and Texas??)

And still.... you use the word budget.  If that what you really mean, then yes, I can figure it out - it's really very simple.  Neither house votes on budgets, they vote on spending bills.

As for any spending bills the House has passed, the Senate just let them die without response, since they were so ridiculous as to not be worth reply.  What happened to Boehner having a vote on the agreement he and Obama had worked out?  It is very likely that would have passed the House a couple weeks earlier.  Why did he decide to let it ride?  

[Gaspar]

Not parsing at all.  It's called "English"...the predominant language of the land (for now....) and when you say one thing but mean another, well don't be surprised if the message is muddied.  Like the "joke" - that really isn't - in technical circles; "oh, no...you did what I said instead of what I meant..."  With hands to head and a distressed look upon the face.  (You can't possibly be this imprecise in your business dealings and be as successful as you imply.  Or do you only sell to the Fox-ify types in Oklahoma and Texas??)

And still.... you use the word budget.  If that what you really mean, then yes, I can figure it out - it's really very simple.  Neither house votes on budgets, they vote on spending bills.

As for any spending bills the House has passed, the Senate just let them die without response, since they were so ridiculous as to not be worth reply.  What happened to Boehner having a vote on the agreement he and Obama had worked out?  It is very likely that would have passed the House a couple weeks earlier.  Why did he decide to let it ride?  

You are priceless.  Don't ever change. 
The Lord has truly given you a special purpose.

[heironymouspasparagus]

You are priceless.  Don't ever change. 
The Lord has truly given you a special purpose.

As you!  Keep trying, though!  It's too early in life to give up yet!

[guido911]

This made me smile this morning.

http://twitchy.com/2013/01/04/hope-and-less-change-americans-cringe-at-first-paychecks-of-2013-stunned-lib-asks-what-happened/

[Gaspar]

This made me smile this morning.

http://twitchy.com/2013/01/04/hope-and-less-change-americans-cringe-at-first-paychecks-of-2013-stunned-lib-asks-what-happened/

Just wait about 11 more days.

[Red Arrow]

Just wait about 11 more days.

Our pay period crossed over the new year.  I'll find out, in part, next Friday.

[guido911]

It's "skin in the game" people. Something to think about for all you folks pissed off that your paying more in taxes...

[Townsend]

It's "skin in the game" people. Something to think about for all you folks pissed off that your paying more in taxes...

Who was solicited to invest?

[guido911]

Who was solicited to invest?

We all were, whether you voted last election cycle or not. That, or you are an evil rich person (meaning you have a job and pay payroll taxes).

[AquaMan]

Who was solicited to invest?

You didn't check out his (depressingly hateful) link I gather. He, and they, have constructed a little fantasy that libs are all in a tither about a 2% increase in payroll deductions that they thought was horribly anemic and destructive when first put into place. I think it saved me enough to buy a Starbucks each month. Now, he thinks my budget is stressed.

[guido911]

You didn't check out his (depressingly hateful) link I gather. He, and they, have constructed a little fantasy that libs are all in a tither about a 2% increase in payroll deductions that they thought was horribly anemic and destructive when first put into place. I think it saved me enough to buy a Starbucks each month. Now, he thinks my budget is stressed.

My link was hateful....Waahhh. This country is filled with too many thin-skinned wusses.

[Townsend]

My link was hateful....Waahhh. This country is filled with too many thin-skinned wusses.

I didn't see any complaints about the link.  Just that it was so hateful as to be depressing.

I agree there are thin skinned folks here in the USA.  We just had a large quantity of them speaking up about a war on a holiday.  It made no sense but they sure were crying about it.

[guido911]

I didn't see any complaints about the link.  Just that it was so hateful as to be depressing.
We just had a large quantity of them speaking up about a war on a holiday. 

The word you were searching for instead of "holiday" is "Christmas". Your skin is that much more thicker now.