If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Anchorage Daily News)   We're not saying Republican Senators are obstructionists, but these days they're reluctant to vote on a bill that's favorable to hunters and outdoorsmen   (adn.com) divider line 98
    More: Asinine, Senate, obstructionists, Majority Leader Harry Reid, Denny Rehberg, environmental laws, firing ranges, hunters, Mitch McConnell  
•       •       •

6633 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Sep 2012 at 4:05 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



98 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-23 04:09:47 AM  
F those jerkasses.
 
2012-09-23 04:13:21 AM  
FTA: "Republicans resisted for a while Friday, contending the only reason Reid wanted the vote now on the bill long sought by hunters and sport fishermen was to benefit Democratic incumbent Jon Tester's re-election prospects in a tossup race in Montana that could determine which party runs the Senate next year."

Yes, how dare the Democrats try to trick Republicans into establishing a voting record that voters can look at to determine if the candidate's values align with their own. Those sneaky bastards.
 
2012-09-23 04:15:37 AM  
Get back to me after the Senate Dems have even OFFERED a budget.

3 years, 4 months, 1 week, 6 days AND counting...
 
2012-09-23 04:16:29 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: FTA: "Republicans resisted for a while Friday, contending the only reason Reid wanted the vote now on the bill long sought by hunters and sport fishermen was to benefit Democratic incumbent Jon Tester's re-election prospects in a tossup race in Montana that could determine which party runs the Senate next year."

Yes, how dare the Democrats try to trick Republicans into establishing a voting record that voters can look at to determine if the candidate's values align with their own. Those sneaky bastards.


They're only doing the right thing in order to look good! It's not fair that voters prefer politicians who do the right thing!
 
2012-09-23 04:18:42 AM  
FTFA: "These polar bears are dead, they are in cold storage and we know exactly who they are."

Mr. and Mrs. P. Bear, 41, Snowy Drive, Baffin Bay, Canada?
 
2012-09-23 04:20:47 AM  
"This isn't a campaign studio, It's the Senate," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., complained on the Senate floor Friday. "We've got responsibilities to meet. Let's meet them. And leave the politics out of it for once."

Sounds like good advice. You should listen to yourself.
 
2012-09-23 04:24:16 AM  
That was a very difficult article to read.
 
2012-09-23 04:25:28 AM  
images61.fotki.com
 
2012-09-23 04:26:36 AM  
"This isn't a campaign studio, It's the Senate," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., complained on the Senate floor Friday. "We've got responsibilities to meet. Let's meet them. And leave the politics out of it for once."

..Mitch McConnell said this? Mitch "Our only goal is to make Obama a one-term President" McConnell? He had the farking BALLS to say that?

Fark that turtlefaced douchebucket.
 
2012-09-23 04:34:37 AM  
If this bill passes, it will basically open up all federal lands to hunters carrying any and all weapons. That includes National Parks like Yosemite to National Military Park like Gettysburg to state historical sites like Mark Twain's birthplace.

If this bill passes, imagine rocker/bowman Ted Nugent going to Yosemite and legally killing the black bears that beg for food along the roads with his trusty bow and arrow.
 
2012-09-23 04:56:51 AM  
So the act of voting itself is now part of the liberal agenda. Got it.

/fark the selfish crybabies
 
2012-09-23 05:00:40 AM  

douchebag/hater: Get back to me after the Senate Dems have even OFFERED a budget.


But that's not their job. That's the executive branch's job. For farks' sake, for all the whining you idiots do about the Constitution, it would help if you read the farking thing once in a while.
 
2012-09-23 05:12:54 AM  

bubo_sibiricus: douchebag/hater: Get back to me after the Senate Dems have even OFFERED a budget.

But that's not their job. That's the executive branch's job. For farks' sake, for all the whining you idiots do about the Constitution, it would help if you read the farking thing once in a while.


TTHHIISS!!
Well said, bubo_sibiricus!!
 
2012-09-23 05:14:41 AM  

bubo_sibiricus: douchebag/hater: Get back to me after the Senate Dems have even OFFERED a budget.

But that's not their job. That's the executive branch's job. For farks' sake, for all the whining you idiots do about the Constitution, it would help if you read the farking thing once in a while.


Actually, all budgetary bills begin in the House. It's the House's role to get a budget out. Then the senate offers its set of compromises, and then finally, the two chambers get an agreed upon budget that is then sent to the president for signature (or veto). So no, the Senate Democrats do not get to set the budget.
 
2012-09-23 05:44:26 AM  

LordJiro: "This isn't a campaign studio, It's the Senate," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., complained on the Senate floor Friday. "We've got responsibilities to meet. Let's meet them. And leave the politics out of it for once."

..Mitch McConnell said this? Mitch "Our only goal is to make Obama a one-term President" McConnell? He had the farking BALLS to say that?

Fark that turtlefaced douchebucket.


i235.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-23 05:48:25 AM  
When a republican reminds you that unemployment under President Obama is currently at 8.1% be sure to remind them that when President Bush left office it was 7.8%. Under President Obama the highest rate was 10.0, which is only an increase of about 30%. Under President Bush the lowest rate was 4.4. Unemployment under President Bush increased by over 75%!
 
2012-09-23 05:51:24 AM  

dericwater: bubo_sibiricus: douchebag/hater: Get back to me after the Senate Dems have even OFFERED a budget.

But that's not their job. That's the executive branch's job. For farks' sake, for all the whining you idiots do about the Constitution, it would help if you read the farking thing once in a while.

Actually, all budgetary bills begin in the House. It's the House's role to get a budget out. Then the senate offers its set of compromises, and then finally, the two chambers get an agreed upon budget that is then sent to the president for signature (or veto). So no, the Senate Democrats do not get to set the budget.


OH MY GOD, DERIC

Quickly, lay down. DOn't worry, I got this.

How in the hell you got that hook in your mouth, I swear I don't know.
 
2012-09-23 05:54:10 AM  

Coelacanth: If this bill passes, imagine rocker/bowman Ted Nugent going to Yosemite and legally killing the black bears that beg for food along the roads with his trusty bow and arrow.


I'm just looking forward to next April.

Link
 
2012-09-23 05:58:58 AM  

Coelacanth: If this bill passes, it will basically open up all federal lands to hunters carrying any and all weapons. That includes National Parks like Yosemite to National Military Park like Gettysburg to state historical sites like Mark Twain's birthplace.

If this bill passes, imagine rocker/bowman Ted Nugent going to Yosemite and legally killing the black bears that beg for food along the roads with his trusty bow and arrow.


That sounds farming awesome, actually.
 
2012-09-23 06:15:42 AM  

dericwater: Actually, all budgetary bills begin in the House


You know, I just looked and it's not called out explicitly that the President must submit a budget in the Contitution, but Article 2 sections 2 and 3 don't work if he doesn't. It was codified and nailed down in 1921 for deadlines that the President must submit a budget every year no later than the first Monday of February.

But it does go like this: President submits budget to House. House comes up with a resolution, flings it over the wall to the Senate, they come up with a resolution, and then both are reconciled, and a budget is passed for signing.

In any case, I was wrong to imply it was explicitly called out in the Constitution. It's only implied. This is what I get for not looking before posting.
 
2012-09-23 06:25:22 AM  

dericwater: bubo_sibiricus: douchebag/hater: Get back to me after the Senate Dems have even OFFERED a budget.

But that's not their job. That's the executive branch's job. For farks' sake, for all the whining you idiots do about the Constitution, it would help if you read the farking thing once in a while.

Actually, all budgetary bills begin in the House. It's the House's role to get a budget out. Then the senate offers its set of compromises, and then finally, the two chambers get an agreed upon budget that is then sent to the president for signature (or veto). So no, the Senate Democrats do not get to set the budget.


Apparently, the difference between budgets and appropriations is as misunderstood as the difference between budget deficit and debt.

The President is required to submit a budget to Congress. A budget is a list of proposed spending. Each house of Congress must adopt a budget resolution and attempt to resolve the differences.

Spending bill, or appropriations, must originate in the House, be approved by the Senate, and then signed by the President. Appropriations authorize actual spending toward the budget.

A budget deficit (or surplus) is the difference between anticipated revenues and anticipated spending. The debt is the amount actually borrowed against the full faith and credit of the United States.

In this administration, the President did submit a budget that got no votes. The House submitted its own budget which passed the House but hasn't been brought up for a vote in the Senate. The Senate has done nothing with budgets.

Having worked in a lot of businesses that did budgets, I know that every year we came up with a month-by-month budget. Then, each month we had an executive review of budget vs. actual. Each department had a budget. Sales had a budget of what they were going to sell, manufacturing had a budget of what they were going to make, purchasing had a budget of what they were going to buy, etc. Each month, there was a review of the previous month - here's the budget, here's the actual. What was the difference and why was there a difference, how does that difference affect the budgets of future months or years?

Does there exist such an analysis in government?
 
2012-09-23 06:38:57 AM  

Mr. Right: lots of words...Does there exist such an analysis in government?


Yes, but since deficits don't matter when a Republican is in office, and Republicans got rid of paygo, and Republicans will no longer accept the CBO as being accurate (facts being liberal), etc, it's just a waste of time.
 
2012-09-23 07:20:26 AM  

ghare: Mr. Right: lots of words...Does there exist such an analysis in government?

Yes, but since deficits don't matter when a Republican is in office, and Republicans got rid of paygo, and Republicans will no longer accept the CBO as being accurate (facts being liberal), etc, it's just a waste of time.


So you're a purely partisan hack. We get it. I tried to keep it simple, but you apparently can't comprehend even that much. Or, your attention deficit is the size of Obama's budget deficit.

Deficits don't matter as much as debt does. Perhaps you missed the difference between budget deficit and debt. Don't take my word for it, look it up. When it's a budget deficit, you have an opportunity (never yet taken by any modern day politician) to balance it with revenues. Once it's a debt, the interest calculations start ticking and it's real money that you really owe.

Paygo was just a buzzword Nancy Pelosi came up with to make it look like she gave a rat's ass about spending. But paygo was another budgetary trick. "If we raise the tax rate, then revenues will increase" has never worked. If Congress was serious about paygo, they would be forced to raise revenues for every FEMA emergency or cut expenditures somewhere else. Ever seen that happen? Nor have I.

CBO numbers are as accurate as the data fed into them. Neither side likes them unless they support their own political position.
 
2012-09-23 07:31:23 AM  
I propose a bill where these hunters kill themselves for shooting polar bears. Big game trophies my ass. Is your penis really so small that you have to display large dead animals in your home? Imagine the story..."It was a dangerous hunt. It started with a lovely morning of eggs, bacon, pancakes and coffee. (We needed our energy to sit in the same spot for hours on end). Jim Bob and I set on the hunt. We sat, hidden in the wilderness all morning. The hunt was slow at first. We hasn't seen a polar bear for three hours. Jim Bob and I started to question the morality of hunting helpless animals for sport. We questioned why we were cursed with such small penises. It almost had to resort to a game of 'I'll show you mine if hou show me yours', but in a totally not-gay way. But then it happened, our target came with in range of our rifles. Our penises grew to a commanding 3 inches that day. I took the shot. My heart was pounding from the danger involved. What if I missed and the polar bear shot back. I came to my senses and realized that it was just a farking polar bear trying to find food. All I have to do is shoot. I took aim. I fired. Direct hit! That bear didn't even put up a fight! And they say bears are dangerous, tough-as-nails creatures. Not today my adversary, not today. We went on to kill 40 more that trip, fueled by the adrenaline of our first kill. We were truly athletes in a sport of killing animals with guns".
/How about I sneak up on you while you're eating and gun you down with a Howitzer? Pricks.
 
2012-09-23 07:33:30 AM  
Reading comprehension, what the fark is it?

//Reid was refusing to allow a vote and was wasting time with a (big word alert) theatrical test vote. Yeah, those damn Republicans and their Jedi mind tricks.
 
2012-09-23 07:50:06 AM  
ts1.mm.bing.net
 
2012-09-23 08:09:43 AM  

DubyaHater: I propose a bill where these hunters kill themselves for shooting polar bears. Big game trophies my ass. Is your penis really so small that you have to display large dead animals in your home? Imagine the story..."It was a dangerous hunt. It started with a lovely morning of eggs, bacon, pancakes and coffee. (We needed our energy to sit in the same spot for hours on end). Jim Bob and I set on the hunt. We sat, hidden in the wilderness all morning. The hunt was slow at first. We hasn't seen a polar bear for three hours. Jim Bob and I started to question the morality of hunting helpless animals for sport. We questioned why we were cursed with such small penises. It almost had to resort to a game of 'I'll show you mine if hou show me yours', but in a totally not-gay way. But then it happened, our target came with in range of our rifles. Our penises grew to a commanding 3 inches that day. I took the shot. My heart was pounding from the danger involved. What if I missed and the polar bear shot back. I came to my senses and realized that it was just a farking polar bear trying to find food. All I have to do is shoot. I took aim. I fired. Direct hit! That bear didn't even put up a fight! And they say bears are dangerous, tough-as-nails creatures. Not today my adversary, not today. We went on to kill 40 more that trip, fueled by the adrenaline of our first kill. We were truly athletes in a sport of killing animals with guns".
/How about I sneak up on you while you're eating and gun you down with a Howitzer? Pricks.


Fark you hippie. I'm hanging in a tree right now and I wish I had the breakfast you described. Bowhunting is a difficult sport and it would be especially hard to arrow a polar bear.

Leave your penis fixation at home and get out and hunt. You clearly don't know anything about hunting.
 
2012-09-23 08:23:02 AM  

bubo_sibiricus: douchebag/hater: Get back to me after the Senate Dems have even OFFERED a budget.

But that's not their job. That's the executive branch's job. For farks' sake, for all the whining you idiots do about the Constitution, it would help if you read the farking thing once in a while.


Actually, while the President offers his budget -requests-, it's up to Congress to pass them. Check and Balance.

Coelacanth: If this bill passes, it will basically open up all federal lands to hunters carrying any and all weapons. That includes National Parks like Yosemite to National Military Park like Gettysburg to state historical sites like Mark Twain's birthplace.

If this bill passes, imagine rocker/bowman Ted Nugent going to Yosemite and legally killing the black bears that beg for food along the roads with his trusty bow and arrow.


So Teddy kills Yogi. Problem?

Mock26: When a republican reminds you that unemployment under President Obama is currently at 8.1% be sure to remind them that when President Bush left office it was 7.8%. Under President Obama the highest rate was 10.0, which is only an increase of about 30%. Under President Bush the lowest rate was 4.4. Unemployment under President Bush increased by over 75%!


Don't forget to remind them also that while Bush was in office, the Dems controlled both houses (and have been for 2 years). Cause and effect?
 
2012-09-23 08:35:15 AM  
douchebag/hater

Get back to me after the Senate Dems have even OFFERED a budget.

3 years, 4 months, 1 week, 6 days AND counting...

Hey, that's enough of that ! It's only wrong when "republicans" do it and you know it!

/sarcasm
 
2012-09-23 08:54:45 AM  

parkthebus: DubyaHater: I propose a bill where these hunters kill themselves for shooting polar bears. Big game trophies my ass. Is your penis really so small that you have to display large dead animals in your home? Imagine the story..."It was a dangerous hunt. It started with a lovely morning of eggs, bacon, pancakes and coffee. (We needed our energy to sit in the same spot for hours on end). Jim Bob and I set on the hunt. We sat, hidden in the wilderness all morning. The hunt was slow at first. We hasn't seen a polar bear for three hours. Jim Bob and I started to question the morality of hunting helpless animals for sport. We questioned why we were cursed with such small penises. It almost had to resort to a game of 'I'll show you mine if hou show me yours', but in a totally not-gay way. But then it happened, our target came with in range of our rifles. Our penises grew to a commanding 3 inches that day. I took the shot. My heart was pounding from the danger involved. What if I missed and the polar bear shot back. I came to my senses and realized that it was just a farking polar bear trying to find food. All I have to do is shoot. I took aim. I fired. Direct hit! That bear didn't even put up a fight! And they say bears are dangerous, tough-as-nails creatures. Not today my adversary, not today. We went on to kill 40 more that trip, fueled by the adrenaline of our first kill. We were truly athletes in a sport of killing animals with guns".
/How about I sneak up on you while you're eating and gun you down with a Howitzer? Pricks.

Fark you hippie. I'm hanging in a tree right now and I wish I had the breakfast you described. Bowhunting is a difficult sport and it would be especially hard to arrow a polar bear.

Leave your penis fixation at home and get out and hunt. You clearly don't know anything about hunting.


So it's hard, eh? Why not shoot at targets? Because killing animals that are no threat to you is... fun? It's... manly? I'm sorry, but no. Hunting for pleasure is the preserve of assholes.
 
2012-09-23 08:59:12 AM  
Maybe the Democrats led by Harry could vote on a budget? Seems a little more important.  And it's been over 1000 days since we've had one.
 
2012-09-23 09:04:02 AM  

Mock26: When a republican reminds you that unemployment under President Obama is currently at 8.1% be sure to remind them that when President Bush left office it was 7.8%. Under President Obama the highest rate was 10.0, which is only an increase of about 30%. Under President Bush the lowest rate was 4.4. Unemployment under President Bush increased by over 75%!


Well, that tears it. I am NOT voting for George Bush! Thanks for the info!
 
2012-09-23 09:44:30 AM  

Mr. Right: "If we raise the tax rate, then revenues will increase" has never worked.


Yes, if there's ever been one thing proven in the last thirty years (since the Laffer curve has become the dominant theory), it's that all the tax increases they've tried don't increase federal revenue per capita.
 
2012-09-23 09:47:41 AM  

Elephantman: [ts1.mm.bing.net image 221x236]


man, you're in trouble. don't you know you're forbidden from correctly using the adjective democratic? you must use the noun democrat as an adjective or risk being drummed out of the republican party!
 
2012-09-23 09:53:32 AM  

Mr. Right: ghare: Mr. Right: lots of words...Does there exist such an analysis in government?

Yes, but since deficits don't matter when a Republican is in office, and Republicans got rid of paygo, and Republicans will no longer accept the CBO as being accurate (facts being liberal), etc, it's just a waste of time.

So you're a purely partisan hack. We get it. I tried to keep it simple, but you apparently can't comprehend even that much. Or, your attention deficit is the size of Obama's budget deficit.

Deficits don't matter as much as debt does. Perhaps you missed the difference between budget deficit and debt. Don't take my word for it, look it up. When it's a budget deficit, you have an opportunity (never yet taken by any modern day politician) to balance it with revenues. Once it's a debt, the interest calculations start ticking and it's real money that you really owe.

Paygo was just a buzzword Nancy Pelosi came up with to make it look like she gave a rat's ass about spending. But paygo was another budgetary trick. "If we raise the tax rate, then revenues will increase" has never worked. If Congress was serious about paygo, they would be forced to raise revenues for every FEMA emergency or cut expenditures somewhere else. Ever seen that happen? Nor have I.

CBO numbers are as accurate as the data fed into them. Neither side likes them unless they support their own political position.



Lol, YOU calling other people partisan. Good one! Next you're going to tell us both sides are equally bad, right?!
 
2012-09-23 09:54:22 AM  

jaayjones: Maybe the Democrats led by Harry could vote on a budget? Seems a little more important.  And it's been over 1000 days since we've had one.


Too bad those Republicans refuse to allow such a measure onto the floor by filibustering it, isn't it?
 
2012-09-23 10:19:42 AM  

Coelacanth: If this bill passes, it will basically open up all federal lands to hunters carrying any and all weapons. That includes National Parks like Yosemite to National Military Park like Gettysburg to state historical sites like Mark Twain's birthplace.

If this bill passes, imagine rocker/bowman Ted Nugent going to Yosemite and legally killing the black bears that beg for food along the roads with his trusty bow and arrow.


Racist.
 
2012-09-23 10:31:02 AM  

austin_millbarge: Coelacanth: If this bill passes, imagine rocker/bowman Ted Nugent going to Yosemite and legally killing the black bears that beg for food along the roads with his trusty bow and arrow.

I'm just looking forward to next April.

Link


Wait I thought republicans were against hand outs. This guy is saying he'll either be dead or making the taxpayers pay for his room and board?
 
2012-09-23 11:14:18 AM  

Coelacanth: If this bill passes, it will basically open up all federal lands to hunters carrying any and all weapons. That includes National Parks like Yosemite to National Military Park like Gettysburg to state historical sites like Mark Twain's birthplace.

If this bill passes, imagine rocker/bowman Ted Nugent going to Yosemite and legally killing the black bears that beg for food along the roads with his trusty bow and arrow.


Wow, that was bit hysterical. The bill would open some additional federal land to hunting, it will NOT allow hunting in National Parks.
 
2012-09-23 11:49:33 AM  

rosy at random: So it's hard, eh? Why not shoot at targets? Because killing animals that are no threat to you is... fun? It's... manly? I'm sorry, but no. Hunting for pleasure is the preserve of assholes.


While I'm sure the polar bear hunters in the article used rifles (really heavy caliber ones) and not bows, I liked the sentiment of hunting a polar bear with a bow. That would be about the fairest hunt I can imagine.

My core sentiment is that hunters are the ones that are preserving habitat and managing populations for the purpose of hunting. A hunted animal won't go extinct. The only thing I hunt anymore is deer. Delicious, tasty deer. Deer that are fattening themselves up on the scraps of corn and soybean fields right now.
 
2012-09-23 11:52:15 AM  

rosy at random:

So it's hard, eh? Why not shoot at targets? Because killing animals that are no threat to you is... fun? It's... manly? I'm sorry, but no. Hunting ...


I do both--shoot targets winter, spring, summer, and then kill animals in the fall. It has nothing to do with being manly, and I know lots of women who do the same. Go back to arranging your flowers or whatever you do.

Here's a target I shot, moran anti-hunter. Just for you.
imageshack.us
 
2012-09-23 12:08:20 PM  
Aww, you think I'm a woman.

Have fun killing those helpless animals! Do you punch toddlers too?
 
2012-09-23 12:17:26 PM  

rosy at random: Aww, you think I'm a woman.

Have fun killing those helpless animals! Do you punch toddlers too?


I have made no determination of your gender. I take little kids shooting every week, and I have never punched one.

I hunt deer, and they are hardly helpless--while they don't have weapons, they do have a tremendous sense of smell and other senses to avoid predators. You really should learn more about hunting.
 
2012-09-23 12:20:10 PM  

douchebag/hater: Get back to me after the Senate Dems have even OFFERED a budget.

3 years, 4 months, 1 week, 6 days AND counting...


What are you talking about? The 2010, 2011, and 2012 budgets have all passed.
 
2012-09-23 12:47:07 PM  

parkthebus: rosy at random: Aww, you think I'm a woman.

Have fun killing those helpless animals! Do you punch toddlers too?

I have made no determination of your gender. I take little kids shooting every week, and I have never punched one.

I hunt deer, and they are hardly helpless--while they don't have weapons, they do have a tremendous sense of smell and other senses to avoid predators. You really should learn more about hunting.


I'm sorry... they have a good sense of smell? I didn't know about that. That makes the ethics of shooting them completely fine! My girlfriend has an amazing sense of smell. Too bad she's in Japan right now so I can't shoot her. Do you think it would be an act of charity to alert hunters in her area that she'd make a good target?
 
2012-09-23 01:27:18 PM  
Of course not. Animals are not anything like people. I get that you're anti-hunting and that I'm not going to convince you. It's a wonderful and rewarding sport, that apparently you'll never enjoy.
 
2012-09-23 01:59:03 PM  
Hunting for fun = murder
 
2012-09-23 02:10:00 PM  

Mr. Right: dericwater: bubo_sibiricus: douchebag/hater: Get back to me after the Senate Dems have even OFFERED a budget.

But that's not their job. That's the executive branch's job. For farks' sake, for all the whining you idiots do about the Constitution, it would help if you read the farking thing once in a while.

Actually, all budgetary bills begin in the House. It's the House's role to get a budget out. Then the senate offers its set of compromises, and then finally, the two chambers get an agreed upon budget that is then sent to the president for signature (or veto). So no, the Senate Democrats do not get to set the budget.

Apparently, the difference between budgets and appropriations is as misunderstood as the difference between budget deficit and debt.

The President is required to submit a budget to Congress. A budget is a list of proposed spending. Each house of Congress must adopt a budget resolution and attempt to resolve the differences.

Spending bill, or appropriations, must originate in the House, be approved by the Senate, and then signed by the President. Appropriations authorize actual spending toward the budget.

A budget deficit (or surplus) is the difference between anticipated revenues and anticipated spending. The debt is the amount actually borrowed against the full faith and credit of the United States.

In this administration, the President did submit a budget that got no votes. The House submitted its own budget which passed the House but hasn't been brought up for a vote in the Senate. The Senate has done nothing with budgets.

Having worked in a lot of businesses that did budgets, I know that every year we came up with a month-by-month budget. Then, each month we had an executive review of budget vs. actual. Each department had a budget. Sales had a budget of what they were going to sell, manufacturing had a budget of what they were going to make, purchasing had a budget of what they were going to buy, etc. Each month, there was a review of the previous month - here's the budget, here's the actual. What was the difference and why was there a difference, how does that difference affect the budgets of future months or years?

Does there exist such an analysis in government?


Thanks for a nice summary. I think that within each department, there are monthly budget reviews. But some departments, like the Dept of Defense, a lot of actual vs expected misses are glossed over. That's not good.
 
2012-09-23 02:30:54 PM  
Maybe if we only hunted the really stupid people, that might be OK. I mean, at some point I imagine the animal just gets too smart to hunt and you have to sadly put down your gun. Up to that point, though, you know, the brighter the animal, the more fun to hunt! What a shame that at some point that annoying morality jerk kicks in and says you shouldn't be killing things anymore.
 
2012-09-23 02:31:23 PM  
0.tqn.com
 
Displayed 50 of 98 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report