Our Individual Elections
Actually, I have heard of the President submitting the budget to Congress. Have no idea where you got the idea that the budget was submitted by Congress. Sure, Congress votes on a budget, but the President presents one to them and they approve it. Apparently you haven't read any reports over the last few years about the Presidents requests for funds for Iraq, etc. All of that is in the budgets he submits to Congress.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
How is that humorous? The only things that I can find that might be considered funny are the part where he says he's going to submit the budget to congress (congress submits the budget to the president) and where he basically says that if he doesn't like it, we're getting stalemate but if he does everything will be peachy...
Am I missing something?
Am I missing something?
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
I don't know how this person did it, but someone wrote a wonderfully funny satire, put George W. Bush's name in the byline, and got the Wall Street Journal to publish it in the editorial pages. Read it when you get a chance. It's hysterical!
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009473
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009473
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
REPUBLICANS GIVE UP CONTROL OF CONGRESS AFTER 12 YEARS
Congress passes tax breaks, finishes with flourish
POSTED: 4:52 a.m. EST, December 9, 2006
WASHINGTON (AP) -- In its last hours of GOP control, Congress passed a raft of bills big and small, most significantly a sweeping bill reviving expired tax breaks, extending trade benefits for developing countries and protecting doctors from a big cut in Medicare payments.
The Senate cleared the bill for President Bush's signature early Saturday by a 79-9 vote. Final adjournment followed after the House and Senate cleared away a bevy of other legislation, including bills reauthorizing health research programs at the National Institutes of Health and an overhaul of fisheries management.
Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, gaveled the House to a close for the last time about 3:15 a.m.; the Senate limped to a close about 4:40 a.m.
But Republicans dumped an unfinished budget on the Democrats about to take power, with the Senate barely meeting a midnight deadline to pass a stopgap spending bill putting the government on autopilot until February 15.
The failure to pass budget bills for domestic agencies, said Rep. David Obey, D-Wisconsin, amounted to "a blatant admission of abject failure by the most useless Congress in modern times."....
....On the rest of the budget, work remained unfinished on nine of 11 spending bills, requiring the stopgap funding bill to put 13 Cabinet departments on autopilot through February 15 frozen at or slightly below current levels.
Democrats now face difficult choices and weeks of work on the leftover budget, which totals $463 billion and must be passed at Bush's strict budget limits.
"They are leaving us with a tremendous mess," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, told reporters. "We have alternatives, none of which are very good."....
....Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-New Hampshire, gave an extraordinary floor speech lambasting his party for losing its way on fiscal discipline and his leadership for jamming it past rank-and-file Republicans opposing the massive measure.
Gregg particularly objected to a provision tucked into the tax bill to expand federal funding for the health benefits of retired coal miners at a cost of some $5 billion over 10 years.
"You just have to ask yourself how we, as a party, got to this point, where we have a leadership which is going to ram down the throats of our party the biggest budget buster in the history of the Congress under Republican leadership," Gregg said.
Congress passes tax breaks, finishes with flourish
POSTED: 4:52 a.m. EST, December 9, 2006
WASHINGTON (AP) -- In its last hours of GOP control, Congress passed a raft of bills big and small, most significantly a sweeping bill reviving expired tax breaks, extending trade benefits for developing countries and protecting doctors from a big cut in Medicare payments.
The Senate cleared the bill for President Bush's signature early Saturday by a 79-9 vote. Final adjournment followed after the House and Senate cleared away a bevy of other legislation, including bills reauthorizing health research programs at the National Institutes of Health and an overhaul of fisheries management.
Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, gaveled the House to a close for the last time about 3:15 a.m.; the Senate limped to a close about 4:40 a.m.
But Republicans dumped an unfinished budget on the Democrats about to take power, with the Senate barely meeting a midnight deadline to pass a stopgap spending bill putting the government on autopilot until February 15.
The failure to pass budget bills for domestic agencies, said Rep. David Obey, D-Wisconsin, amounted to "a blatant admission of abject failure by the most useless Congress in modern times."....
....On the rest of the budget, work remained unfinished on nine of 11 spending bills, requiring the stopgap funding bill to put 13 Cabinet departments on autopilot through February 15 frozen at or slightly below current levels.
Democrats now face difficult choices and weeks of work on the leftover budget, which totals $463 billion and must be passed at Bush's strict budget limits.
"They are leaving us with a tremendous mess," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, told reporters. "We have alternatives, none of which are very good."....
....Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-New Hampshire, gave an extraordinary floor speech lambasting his party for losing its way on fiscal discipline and his leadership for jamming it past rank-and-file Republicans opposing the massive measure.
Gregg particularly objected to a provision tucked into the tax bill to expand federal funding for the health benefits of retired coal miners at a cost of some $5 billion over 10 years.
"You just have to ask yourself how we, as a party, got to this point, where we have a leadership which is going to ram down the throats of our party the biggest budget buster in the history of the Congress under Republican leadership," Gregg said.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
Sonic's right. Schlesinger was a horrible candidate. If he'd been running in NY, I would not have voted for him just because he was my party's choice. That would be irresponsible, but a lot of Democrats seemed to do that by voting for Lamont. Did you notice, though, that many top Democrats endorsed Lamont when he won the primary, but seem to insist that it was just playing the game. They were towing the party line, rather than acting on principle. Oh, I know that Lamont stood for the anti-war crowd, but that was a one-issue trick that didn't work out for him or the party in that race.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Not true. The Republican candidate was a scandal-ridden disgrace who refused to drop out of the race when pressured by the GOP. Republicans didn't want him either.OscarGuy wrote:the ONLY reason Republicans voted for him wasn't because they wanted HIM as the Senator. They just didn't want Lamont.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
the ONLY reason Republicans voted for him wasn't because they wanted HIM as the Senator. They just didn't want Lamont.
Using republicans' votes as rationale again misses the entire point.
If Lieberman had NOT been in the race and it were an actual race between Lamont and the 'pub, Lamont would have won hands-down. Republicans saw an opportunity to manipulate politics and did so. It's even more repugnant that the republicans did what they did than what Lieberman did.
Using republicans' votes as rationale again misses the entire point.
If Lieberman had NOT been in the race and it were an actual race between Lamont and the 'pub, Lamont would have won hands-down. Republicans saw an opportunity to manipulate politics and did so. It's even more repugnant that the republicans did what they did than what Lieberman did.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
OKay, oscarguy. So Democrats didn't like him or his stance on Iraq, but they missed an important fact. They are not the only ones who matter. Lieberman may have been a Democrat, but as an elected senator he does not only serve Democrats. He knows this. Maybe more so now than ever, since he got more independent and Republican votes this time around. It is why he was re-elected.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Criddic, as usual, you have missed the entire point.
Lieberman's issue is that he was a Democrat. When the Democrats of Connecticut said "We Don't Want You", he disregarded their wishes in a grab for power and went independent. He's a selfish prig who doesn't give a #### what the people who elected him so many times before had to say and just wanted to hold onto his glory...
We dislike his policy stances but the fact that he disregarded the wishes of his party in the primaries is repugnant and disgusting.
Lieberman's issue is that he was a Democrat. When the Democrats of Connecticut said "We Don't Want You", he disregarded their wishes in a grab for power and went independent. He's a selfish prig who doesn't give a #### what the people who elected him so many times before had to say and just wanted to hold onto his glory...
We dislike his policy stances but the fact that he disregarded the wishes of his party in the primaries is repugnant and disgusting.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Does it have to do with the fact that he doesn't march in lock-step with the liberal wing of the Democratic Party? I thought that diversity of opinion and doing what you think is right were stregnths, not weaknesses. But, you're right, when have I seen that on this board in all but the most rare instances? Guess I should've guessed Lieberman would be your enemy.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
Ugh, tell me about it. The Reps being the worst party is pretty much the only reason I vote for the Dems. If the Green Party was a real threat, they'd definitely get my vote.Damien wrote:Democratic senators gave Lieberman a standing ovation today. Pathetic, just pathetic. What putzes. What a sad political state we have in thie United States. If it wasn't for the Republicans, the Democrats would be the worst political party in this country.
The Dems have really never defended the word "liberal" (which has become tantamount to a cuss word in American politics) and for that I will never forgive them.
Oh yeah, and Lieberman is an ass.
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
When I read about this, Damien, I thought of the line from Butley, "Toadying is the sincerest form of contempt". I don't think a whole lot of Democrats have any affection for Lieberman at this point, but, to preserve their majority status, they'll kiss his ring as often as he demands.Damien wrote:Democratic senators gave Lieberman a standing ovation today. Pathetic, just pathetic. What putzes. What a sad political state we have in thie United States. If it wasn't for the Republicans, the Democrats would be the worst political party in this country.
Democratic senators gave Lieberman a standing ovation today. Pathetic, just pathetic. What putzes. What a sad political state we have in thie United States. If it wasn't for the Republicans, the Democrats would be the worst political party in this country.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell