tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post992600408825152480..comments2024-03-28T12:07:48.021-04:00Comments on the daily howler: Breaking: Barack Obama talks pork to the people!<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-25153533537260664462013-01-16T07:24:03.387-05:002013-01-16T07:24:03.387-05:00"a budget that is the starting point for the ..."a budget that is the starting point for the Congress. The Congress then haggles and argues about various parts of it"<br /><br />In your fantasy world.<br /><br />Here on Earth, the GOP congress outright lockstep rejects the President's submission and goes its own way (as is their perfect right -- the stupid part is in asking Presidents to submit anything) in crafting a budget.<br /><br />"The President doesn't have absolute authority to spend whatever he wants."<br /><br />Close. He's got NO authority. He's got to follow the budget that Congress ultimately designs and approves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-33218064869155483192013-01-15T20:28:52.613-05:002013-01-15T20:28:52.613-05:00The important point to note, David, is that Obama ...The important point to note, David, is that Obama was allowed to vote, up or down. Just put the matter to a vote now, and there is no doubt it would pass. If your tea party friends want to make a protest vote, fine. That's democracy. If they don't like the outcome, then maybe they should try to figure out how to get twice as many republicans elected to congress with 2,000,000 fewer votes than the dems. What the repubs are doing now is unprecedented. mmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-16653463289598956302013-01-15T19:28:02.548-05:002013-01-15T19:28:02.548-05:00Not to deny you your due, David:
You're a cr...Not to deny you your due, David: <br /><br />You're a crybaby AND a bullshit artist.<br /><br />Quoting now from the link given below:<br /><br />Barack Obama has submitted the following budgets:<br /><br />FY 2010 - May 7, 2009 (in transition years, incoming Presidents have typically submitted late. See Reagan, Clinton, W. Bush. H.W. Bush doesn't really count, because he didn't submit a budget or revise Reagan's outgoing submission.)<br /><br />FY 2011 - On time.<br /><br />FY 2012 - Due on February 7, submitted February 14, 2011<br /><br />FY 2013 - Due on February 6, submitted February 13, 2012<br /><br />FY 2014 - Has notified Congress that it will be late prior to the deadline and we don't know how late it will be.<br /><br />Obama did miss the deadline on three of four prior <br /><br />But he was late and that's terrible, right? Well, how many times did Reagan meet the Congressionally-mandated deadline for his mid-session budget review? Once in eight years. When he was late, it was anywhere from 10 days to 46 days late. (Consider also that the great scofflaw (sarcasm) Reagan missed the deadline for his initial budget proposal by 45 days in 1988 (not a transition year), and H.W. Bush missed the deadline by 21 days one year out of three tries.) My point being, all the hand wringing about the timing is, as<br />Ricardo117 points out, just political theater.<br /><br />http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/15/who-needs-a-budget/#comment-768777673<br /><br />Yes, you are a whining baby, David.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-85361282217594100722013-01-15T18:55:51.015-05:002013-01-15T18:55:51.015-05:00Right, only a crybaby would expect the Obama White...Right, only a crybaby would expect the Obama White House to obey the law.<br /><br />David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-16131217714453898242013-01-15T16:33:27.202-05:002013-01-15T16:33:27.202-05:00Obama will not put his signature to cuts to entitl...<i>Obama will not put his signature to cuts to entitlements</i><br /><br />Yeah, sure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-54360247050533571982013-01-15T16:30:24.684-05:002013-01-15T16:30:24.684-05:00Pfft, I'll believe he's taking a principle...Pfft, I'll believe he's taking a principled stand once the votes are counted, thank you. I agree with Digby, I think he wants a "Grand Bargain" that will necessarily include cutting "entitlements" so he can ride off into the sunset as the great man who made the tough choices in the name of bipartisanship.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-7227453604750024932013-01-15T16:26:49.531-05:002013-01-15T16:26:49.531-05:00Just stick with "you can't analogize gove...Just stick with "you can't analogize government spending and household spending" and leave it at that. It is a fundamentally flawed analogy, of the apples-and-oranges variety. Neither you nor your spendthrift brother-in-law can pay your debts by printing more money (or "raising the debt ceiling"). The Congress can (or rather the Fed can, and if you think the Fed is going to refuse to do so if asked I have some prime real estate to sell you).<br /><br /><i>Are you holding your brother-in-law's housing "hostage" to your demands for more responsible behavior? The answer is "yes" only if you're ready to let the sheriff come and put his belongings on the curb.</i><br /><br />Well, as long as we're using this flawed analogy, then instead of the sheriff coming to put our nation's belongings on the curb, the global financial system is coming to eradicate our economy; and as a result, a great many of us would indeed wind up homeless. So I'd say yes, the GOP is threatening to hold us hostage, and the only reason they are doing so is to try to force us to cut "entitlements" because that's their ideology and they can't it done through the usual means (by legislation). That is reckless and outrageous, to my mind. That is your brother-in-law threatening to burn down YOUR house if you don't pay his back rent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-62238302693917678012013-01-15T16:12:36.699-05:002013-01-15T16:12:36.699-05:00It's a little confusing, but there's some ...It's a little confusing, but there's some truth on both sides here. The President doesn't "set" the spending, but he does submit a budget that is the starting point for the Congress. The Congress then haggles and argues about various parts of it and it usually goes back and forth between Congress the President a few times before it is finally approved and appropriations are made. But it is entirely Congress' role to appropriate the money or not appropriate it. That is spelled out in the Constitution. And if Congress doesn't appropriate the money, the President can't unilaterally (with a few exceptions I think) go out and spend it.<br /><br />So the President does have a role, and a very important one, in the spending process; but he doesn't have absolute authority to spend whatever he wants. (NOT spending on something that Congress appropriates money for is a different question, and I don't think the answer is clear.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-21164160103356634652013-01-15T16:03:11.198-05:002013-01-15T16:03:11.198-05:00No, dum-dum.
Congressional taxation and spending...No, dum-dum. <br /><br />Congressional taxation and spending bills, combined with the electoral process is how we "enforce fiscal discipline." <br /><br />("Discipline" which, of course we desperately *don't* need right now -- right now when our biggest economic problem is too little spending, not too much -- but you'll never get that thought through you thick head...)<br /><br />You don't like what your reps do, you vote for (er, I mean, you buy) different ones.<br /><br />"Obama's (irrelevant) budget bill won't be on time, wahhh!," sez the crybaby "actuary."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-59117652448110257182013-01-15T14:52:57.133-05:002013-01-15T14:52:57.133-05:00"In Fitch's opinion, the debt ceiling is ..."In Fitch's opinion, the debt ceiling is an ineffective and potentially dangerous mechanism for enforcing fiscal discipline."<br /><br />Maybe so. Unfortunately the debt ceiling seems to be the only mechanism we have for enforcing fiscal discipline. <br /><br />The Senate hasn't even bothered to produce a budget for several years, even though they're legally required to do so. <br /><br />And, Obama's Acting Budget Director Jeff Zients told Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) late Friday that the White House budget will not be delivered by Feb. 4, as required by law.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-48022192655854853902013-01-15T14:36:25.423-05:002013-01-15T14:36:25.423-05:00This makes sense to me. I've always thought th...This makes sense to me. I've always thought that Obama would rather have a beer with Joe Lieberman than with any of us.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-5651442523290244412013-01-15T12:36:41.379-05:002013-01-15T12:36:41.379-05:00"In Fitch's opinion, the debt ceiling is ..."In Fitch's opinion, the debt ceiling is an ineffective and potentially dangerous mechanism for enforcing fiscal discipline."<br /><br />Well, Fitch, that's a great big "Duh, no kidding mate!" <br /><br />(Unless, of course, you're DavidinCA or ABL or QinaB or some other GOP Kool-Aid drinker soi-disant "free-thinker.")Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-88663431054203174942013-01-15T12:12:32.524-05:002013-01-15T12:12:32.524-05:00Extremists and fools, yes.
But also and maybe mos...Extremists and fools, yes.<br /><br />But also and maybe most importantly, manipulators.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-21606745786751368422013-01-15T12:02:46.195-05:002013-01-15T12:02:46.195-05:00I guess the change took place about the same time ...I guess the change took place about the same time that debt changed from a legitimate concern to one only extremists and fools worry about. ABLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-11139416944067057842013-01-15T11:00:45.541-05:002013-01-15T11:00:45.541-05:00+1+1Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-44444631127094656732013-01-15T10:48:26.853-05:002013-01-15T10:48:26.853-05:00Look,
The Tea Party wants cuts to Social Security...Look,<br /><br />The Tea Party wants cuts to Social Security and Medicare Benefits, and they will hold House Republicans accountable in 2014.<br /><br />Never mind that the Tea Partiers are fools for voting against their own interests, and misguided for thinking the Debt should be addressed immediately with draconian (austerity) measures while the unemployed are left to the mercies of market forces.<br /><br />Obama will not put his signature to cuts to entitlements, (which is what this is really all about) even though he is a lame duck President.<br /><br />Our children will inherit our liabilities, but they will also inherit our assets. What they do with them is up to them, not us. (In the long run we are all dead.) <br /><br />It's pointless to try to implement a 20 or 30 year plan when the government can be radically changed in the House of Representatives every 2 years, and leadership can be changed every 4 years.<br /><br />Fix the recession now, and hand our kids a stable economy, if not a booming one.<br />Get out of Afghanistan and not leave a war behind for our descendants.<br /><br />"WE DO NOT INHERIT THE EARTH FROM OUR ANCESTORS, WE BORROW IT FROM OUR CHILDREN" - Old Hindu saying<br />gravymeisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16075831177588700301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-79208159299427264442013-01-15T10:27:41.462-05:002013-01-15T10:27:41.462-05:00"Senate Democrats in 2006 could not prevent t..."Senate Democrats in 2006 could not prevent the lifting of the debt ceiling, making their venal posturing purely symbolic."<br /><br />No, but Senate Democrats and House Democrats could have prevented it in 2007, and they chose not to play Russian roulette with the global economy.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-5245359909266949622013-01-15T10:20:29.640-05:002013-01-15T10:20:29.640-05:00Yes, and the oversimplistic analysis of "Sen....Yes, and the oversimplistic analysis of "Sen. Obama was against raising the debt ceiling them, and President Obama is for it now, thus he is a hypocrite" is part of the reason this country is in a mess.<br /><br />People like you want to believe everything they are told at face value and are unwilling to do the hard work of researching and thinking for themselves.<br /><br />Sen. Obama's vote was clearly a protest against the abandonment of "pay-go" rules that required Congress to "pay" for any new spending AND tax cuts without increasing the deficit.<br /><br />It was those very rules that turned this country from deficit to surplus, before Dubya took over.<br /><br />And if you took the five seconds it takes to google up that speech and read it for youself -- without anybody else spinning pleasing tales about it for you -- you'd know that.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-48157175807477872022013-01-15T10:04:27.446-05:002013-01-15T10:04:27.446-05:00Nope, it wasn't principled then. It was venal ...Nope, it wasn't principled then. It was venal political posturing. <br /><br />And it was justified according to then-Senator Obama because, he said, ""America has a debt problem."<br /><br />The difference is not in Obama -- he's still touting wrong-headed debt and deficit mania today -- but in the practical effects of the vote.<br /><br />Senate Democrats in 2006 could not prevent the lifting of the debt ceiling, making their venal posturing purely symbolic.<br /><br />Republicans in the House today can prevent the lifting of the ceiling.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-71694787726597364452013-01-15T10:04:20.806-05:002013-01-15T10:04:20.806-05:00Nice try at revisionism, David. But during the Bus...Nice try at revisionism, David. But during the Bush Administration, the debt ceiling was raised routinely and simply, with both Democratic and Republican votes.<br /><br />True, some Democrats made a show vote against raising the ceiling, particularly because Bush chose to fight two wars off the books for the first time in this nation's history.<br /><br />And where were all these neo-deficit hawk Repubicans then? Not worried one little bit about the debt the nation was rolling up -- until a Democrat moved into the White House.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-63252601283228750592013-01-15T09:55:50.692-05:002013-01-15T09:55:50.692-05:00"The President doesn't set the spending, ..."The President doesn't set the spending, you know?"<br /><br />"Really?"<br /><br />Yes, really. Glad to be of help to you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-522645201665787592013-01-15T02:43:51.363-05:002013-01-15T02:43:51.363-05:00Obviously at some point between 2007 and now, voti...Obviously at some point between 2007 and now, voting against increasing the debt ceiling changed from a principled act to an extremist, semi-terrorist act. ABLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-40398944394758038472013-01-15T01:45:24.285-05:002013-01-15T01:45:24.285-05:00Back when Bush was President, Obama and many other...Back when Bush was President, Obama and many other Dems voted against raising the debt ceiling. This is a normal political battle and political theatre. Today's Republican aren't nuts or treasonous, nor were Obama and the Dems back when Bush was President.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-60985046324684771492013-01-15T00:23:20.778-05:002013-01-15T00:23:20.778-05:00Quaker, maybe to try to make your irrelevant analo...Quaker, maybe to try to make your irrelevant analogy faintly analogous, try this. You've co-signed on your brother-in-law's lease agreement. That makes you responsible for the rent owed by your brother-in-law, and/or by you, on the months already lived in the housing and on any remaining on the lease.mchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-48255687855398397702013-01-14T22:10:00.480-05:002013-01-14T22:10:00.480-05:00" The time is very late."??
It's no..." The time is very late."??<br /><br />It's not late if you're not going to negotiate anyway. There was a lot of discussion a month ago over whether the debt ceiling negotiation should be part of the fiscal cliff deal...with many Dems thinking Obama would be foolish to cut a fiscal cliff deal only to have the rug pulled out from under a month later. <br /><br />But the Obama administration was clear back then and clear now that they are not going to negotiate on the debt ceiling. That Congress simply has to raise the debt ceiling.<br /><br />The GOP has always had something between a weak hand and no hand at all in this poker game. They're really going to let the gov't stop making some payments? And let Obama pick which payments to make? <br /><br />The GOP threat to bring gov't and a large part of the economy to a screeching halt unless we cut Grandma's social security by $100 ten years from now isn't a liberal messaging problem. It's a dysfunctional GOP problem--dysfunctional because their own supporters will abandon them if they go through with this. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com