Hmmmmm...

[sirs]

Ignoring the FACT again that it's not the President's budget HE proposed (meaning the one he would wish to impliment, if it was in his power solely)

Never said it was. There's another FACT for you.

Wow, finally some concensus

So, distort to your heart's content...

No distortion there. If he doesn't like it, he can veto it. Then Congress may or may not override the veto. Says so right there in the Constitution. That too is a FACT.  Though you would argue with a signpost if it meant trying to make it look like I was wrong. And that is another FACT.

You give yourself far too much credit.  I'd argue with anyone trying to twist the facts to paint an acutely distorted, if not biased picture.  You just happen to be another of a long line

I never said that you were a simpleton or can't understand the complexities of an issue. I never attacked you personally, at all.  You were never asked to present anything, you chose to give an extremely simple and utterly useless review of the budgetary process.

That'd be your opinion.  I simply provided a layman's framework of context to undistort both the toon and H's presentation of it.  But you took that to lay claim of how much more "complex" the process is, thus obviously above my pay grade apparently, context unnecessary.

I'm dealing with pragmatic political reality, where Congress cannot defund anything they wish. You are dealing with Ivory Tower theory, where the power to do so may exist, but in our system it is impossible to employ as you've illustrated here.

So, Congress CAN'T defund the war??  Are you using a different constitution than the rest of us??

[hnumpah]

...what policy to reduce the debt is being proposed...

Uh, Plane, ol' buddy ol' pal, it's a cartoon...it didn't propose anything, just made the point that a huge chunk of our national debt is due to the administrations of our last few Republican presidents...you know, the ones from the party of fiscal responsibility?

[Plane]

...what policy to reduce the debt is being proposed...

Uh, Plane, ol' buddy ol' pal, it's a cartoon...it didn't propose anything, just made the point that a huge chunk of our national debt is due to the administrations of our last few Republican presidents...you know, the ones from the party of fiscal responsibility?

Yes , I am disapointed too.

Can we re-enact Gramm-Rudman , and let it remain this time?

[hnumpah]

I'd argue with anyone trying to twist the facts...

Didn't twist them, just posted them. What you read into them, now, that's another story.

[sirs]

I'd argue with anyone trying to twist the facts...

Didn't twist them, just posted them.

Sure you did.  Your toon & your rhetoric referenced the budgets, and the Presidents that signed them into law, as if that happened in a vacuum, MINUS the context of the budgets that the Presidents themselves send to Congress, and MINUS what Congress does to those budgets before they get returned to the President, with the continued implication "it's all their fault, they could have vetoed it, but they didn't, so there"

So yea, you used selected facts to help paint your toon.  It's ok, as long as it was entertaining to you

[_JS]

That'd be your opinion.  I simply provided a layman's framework of context to undistort both the toon and H's presentation of it.  But you took that to lay claim of how much more "complex" the process is, thus obviously above my pay grade apparently, context unnecessary.

It is more complex than you presented it. You made it seem as if Congress writes the budget - they do not. You also implied that the President is an innocent bystander, forced to sign whatever budget is presented - he is not.

Your review of the budget process is not a "layman's framework" Sirs. It is simply false. It is the equivalent of telling your kids that thunder is caused by angels moving chairs in heaven.

I'm sorry that reality is more "complex," but that's just the way it is. The real Federal Budget is not like the movie Dave where Jim Bob who runs a package store (or whatever) can come in off the street and balance the budget because "he knows how businesses operate."

The Budget Process involves a hell of a lot of work, mostly done by Executive Branch employees at each agency. The majority of the work on the budget has nothing to do with Congress or the tit you call a president.

 

So, Congress CAN'T defund the war??  Are you using a different constitution than the rest of us??

No, they cannot. Not in the real world.

In a political chess match played by wonks on the sidelines - yes, in theory it can be done.

[hnumpah]

...you used selected facts to help paint your toon...

In case you've lived in a cave the last twenty years, G.B. Trudeau did the cartoon. I posted it because I found the point it made interesting. If you don't like it, tough shit.

The veto power still exists. That it isn't used is (ta-da) the president's fault, and that's a FACT, whether you like it or not. That is the only point I'm making.

The rest is your usual gobbledygook.

[sirs]

...you used selected facts to help paint your toon...

In case you've lived in a cave the last twenty years, G.B. Trudeau did the cartoon. I posted it because I found the point it made interesting. If you don't like it, tough shit.

No, I simply didn't appreciate either you or the toon, trying to paint a misleading portrait of reality.  That's all, no biggie, just a littlie

That'd be your opinion.  I simply provided a layman's framework of context to undistort both the toon and H's presentation of it.  But you took that to lay claim of how much more "complex" the process is, thus obviously above my pay grade apparently, context unnecessary.

It is more complex than you presented it. You made it seem as if Congress writes the budget - they do not.

Of course it is, and NO I DID NOT.  Did I NOT make it clear that the President submits his budget proposal 1st??  Did I not make it clear that the original Presidential budget is the one the President wants congress to follow??  Is this mic on?  Congress does however, have as one of it's PRIMARY responsibilities, that of submitting the Budget the country is to run on, for the President to sign into law.  And the Congressional majority rarely follows the President's "intentions", when they're a member of the opposing party.  Hell, under this Bush the GOP didn't follow Bush's intentions either, yet he did sign them into law.  The point being, is that Congress submits the budget that the President either signs or doesn't sign into law.  Trying to keep painting me as some simpleton, unable to grasp the complexities of the Budgetary process is going to bring this part of the thread to a quick cessation       

You also implied that the President is an innocent bystander, forced to sign whatever budget is presented - he is not.

Did I NOT reference that he may veto it?  Did I not reference that there are frequently compromises made??  Gads, I swear Js, you seem to be purposely ignoring the majority of what I write.  Reagan & Bush & Bush are ALL responsible for the budgets they sign.  They are ALL responsible for the spending that occurs to those Budgets they sign.  The POINT I've been making is that's NOT the entire truth, nor perepective that the toon was trying to paint.  The toon, along with you & Js PURPOSELY OMMITTED the facts that Congress plays in the budgetary process, and instead trying to make it all about Republican Presidents as supposedly fiscally wreckless.  It's not anywhere NEAR that simple. 

But as long as you and H enjoyed the toon, I guess that's all that really matters.  It is just a toon.  Ted Rall might be envious

So, Congress CAN'T defund the war??  Are you using a different constitution than the rest of us??

No, they cannot. Not in the real world.

Riiight.  Actually they CAN, they simply choose not to because of fear of the political fall-out, as you yourself have conceded they can "in theory", which is also in reality

[Mr_Perceptive]

The President has NEVER, in the long history of the country, EVER had his entire budget passed. But he can ALWAYS veto it and send it back.

The two Bushes and Reagan are responsible for at least 75% of the national debt, however, and we have had 43 presidents.
Both the Bushes and Reagan ran on a platform of balanced budgets and financial stability. But this was a lie in all three cases.

Since Theodore Roosevelt, who left the Party, when Republicans talk about financial responsibility, they mean preventing poor people from benefitting from their citizenship in any way.

"Since Theodore Roosevelt, who left the Party, when Republicans talk about financial responsibility, they mean preventing poor people from benefitting from their citizenship in any way."

Many in this forum acuse Sirs of presenting issues too simply, yet didn't YOU just do the SAME?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Since Theodore Roosevelt, who left the Party, when Republicans talk about financial responsibility, they mean preventing poor people from benefitting from their citizenship in any way.


==================================================
If you will just examine every GOP candidate since Hoover, this is pretty much the official party platform.

Rich people deserve incentives and get tax breaks and subsidies.
Poor people are unworthy of such favors. They will be trained when there is a job shortage or a war, but by and large, they are not deemed worthy of any sort of aid.

They can be used to build up the party base. During the Vietnam War, hard hat veterans were used to holler support for Tricky Dicky.\
Now its ratwing bible thumpers, gay bashers and ten commandmenteers.

I defy you to name any Republican nominee who did not act according to this view.

[Mr_Perceptive]

"I defy you to name any Republican nominee who did not act according to this view."

What metrics can be applied here?