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.

(Townhall)   Once again, Obama fails to meet his Constitutionally mandated deadline for submitting a budget   (townhall.com) divider line 125
    More: Fail, President Obama, constitutionals, Jim Geraghty, the Bus Uncle, House Budget Committee  
•       •       •

1718 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Feb 2013 at 11:55 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-05 11:56:26 AM
Quizzicaldog.jpg
 
2013-02-05 11:57:30 AM
Study it out.
 
2013-02-05 11:57:46 AM
The GOP must really want to reject this year's submitted budget on time for some reason.
 
2013-02-05 12:00:47 PM
2014 FTW
 
2013-02-05 12:01:30 PM
I'm going to assume that for the 6 years President Bush submitted his budget 9 months late and then harped that it had to be approved with all haste because otherwise you hate troops, this guy definately must have written a lot of scathing articles about the extreme inappropriateness and disrespect present in those actions.

/Yes, I can't see how that could not have possibly happened.
 
2013-02-05 12:01:48 PM
So..  um, what constitution exactly are they referring to?


It must be the wishful thinking constitution of derpistan?
 
2013-02-05 12:02:22 PM
I'm sure we can get him impeached and replaced by the Palinator.

This is how the Conservatives think right?
 
2013-02-05 12:02:54 PM
Constitution for the United States of America
Article II

ctrl F "budget"
Phrase not found
 
2013-02-05 12:03:14 PM
Love or hate Paul Ryan, but this much is absolutely true:

"In fact, we spend $3 for every $2 we take in. And we can't keep that up. If we stay on this path, our finances will collapse... "
 
2013-02-05 12:04:11 PM

Realpolitik420: Love or hate Paul Ryan, but this much is absolutely true:

"In fact, we spend $3 for every $2 we take in. And we can't keep that up. If we stay on this path, our finances will collapse... "


I'm not sure that that first one is true at all, actually.
 
2013-02-05 12:04:15 PM

Realpolitik420: Love or hate Paul Ryan, but this much is absolutely true:

"In fact, we spend $3 for every $2 we take in. And we can't keep that up. If we stay on this path, our finances will collapse... "


It is not absolutely true.
 
2013-02-05 12:04:57 PM

Realpolitik420: Love or hate Paul Ryan, but this much is absolutely true:

"In fact, we spend $3 for every $2 we take in. And we can't keep that up. If we stay on this path, our finances will collapse... "


The Krugmanites have declared we can print unlimited amounts of debt with no worries.
 
2013-02-05 12:05:22 PM
TardHall.....you've been told for over 4 years.......budgets start in congress, not in the executive branch.
 
2013-02-05 12:05:56 PM
I was impressed when the local Beck/Limbaugh/Hannity station said that Reagan submitted a budget late one time.

(That was right before the host told Al Gore, It's cold out today, there's no such thing as climate change.)
 
2013-02-05 12:07:15 PM

max_pooper: Realpolitik420: Love or hate Paul Ryan, but this much is absolutely true:

"In fact, we spend $3 for every $2 we take in. And we can't keep that up. If we stay on this path, our finances will collapse... "

It is not absolutely true.


It feels true.....that's good enough for me because it makes the gubmint look like morans.
 
2013-02-05 12:07:56 PM
 
2013-02-05 12:09:19 PM

LasersHurt: .


Even if the exact figures are not correct (i.e., spend $3 for every $2), its very clear we are spending more than our government is bringing in. He is right that such a situation can't be kept up long term, and if no changes occur, our government's finances will collapse.
 
2013-02-05 12:10:13 PM

Realpolitik420: LasersHurt: .

Even if the exact figures are not correct (i.e., spend $3 for every $2), its very clear we are spending more than our government is bringing in. He is right that such a situation can't be kept up long term, and if no changes occur, our government's finances will collapse.


Wrong.
 
2013-02-05 12:10:35 PM

Realpolitik420: LasersHurt: .

Even if the exact figures are not correct (i.e., spend $3 for every $2), its very clear we are spending more than our government is bringing in. He is right that such a situation can't be kept up long term, and if no changes occur, our government's finances will collapse.


So it's ok to lie as long as you agree with the point being made?
 
2013-02-05 12:10:47 PM

Realpolitik420: Love or hate Paul Ryan, but this much is absolutely true:

"In fact, we spend $3 for every $2 we take in. And we can't keep that up. If we stay on this path, our finances will collapse... "


Wow, he really is the "numbers guy" the conservatives were kvelling about during the election
 
2013-02-05 12:11:05 PM

Realpolitik420: He is right that such a situation can't be kept up long term, and if no changes occur, our government's finances will collapse.


No, he's not. The government's finances will never collapse because it is in the unique situation of being able to print money.
 
2013-02-05 12:12:38 PM

max_pooper: Constitution for the United States of America
Article II

ctrl F "budget"
Phrase not found


It's a requirement set forth in some budget act signed into law in 1921. So, it is law. But you can check the Office of Management and Budget website to see the 2013 submission. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview) But I think they were supposed to submit the 2014 Budget proposal last week.

Not that it matters. Congress pretty much ignores the President's budget if they have no interest in his priorities. And the House has no interest in the President's priorities.
 
2013-02-05 12:12:52 PM
More conservative whining. Nothing to see here.
 
2013-02-05 12:12:53 PM

Realpolitik420: LasersHurt: .

Even if the exact figures are not correct (i.e., spend $3 for every $2), its very clear we are spending more than our government is bringing in. He is right that such a situation can't be kept up long term, and if no changes occur, our government's finances will collapse.


the problem with that is that paul ryan's solution to the situation is to slash revenues.
 
2013-02-05 12:14:31 PM

Cataholic: Realpolitik420: Love or hate Paul Ryan, but this much is absolutely true:

"In fact, we spend $3 for every $2 we take in. And we can't keep that up. If we stay on this path, our finances will collapse... "

The Krugmanites have declared we can print unlimited amounts of debt with no worries.


The government can currently borrow at rates lower than inflation.  It's financially irresponsible NOT to spend now.
 
2013-02-05 12:14:58 PM
well, the conservatives should make a horrible budget, call it "The Obama Budget" and let it get voted down, again.
 
2013-02-05 12:15:28 PM

max_pooper: Realpolitik420: Love or hate Paul Ryan, but this much is absolutely true:

"In fact, we spend $3 for every $2 we take in. And we can't keep that up. If we stay on this path, our finances will collapse... "

It is not absolutely true.


And it would have a lot more meaning if he was willing to propose some meaningful cuts outside of just partisan attacks on Public Broadcasting and other pet-peeves of the GOP.
 
2013-02-05 12:15:41 PM

Realpolitik420: LasersHurt: .

Even if the exact figures are not correct (i.e., spend $3 for every $2), its very clear we are spending more than our government is bringing in. He is right that such a situation can't be kept up long term, and if no changes occur, our government's finances will collapse.



Let's start by drastically abating our Global Imperialism.
 
2013-02-05 12:15:49 PM
I always thought the budget started in the House, then went back and forth between the House and Senate until both agreed on it, then it went to the Prez to be signed or not.  Did I get that wrong in my Social Studies classes?
 
2013-02-05 12:17:29 PM

Realpolitik420: LasersHurt: .

Even if the exact figures are not correct (i.e., spend $3 for every $2), its very clear we are spending more than our government is bringing in. He is right that such a situation can't be kept up long term, and if no changes occur, our government's finances will collapse.


Why not?  We've been spending more than we've been taking in for a long time.  Where's the magical cut off at which we "collapse"?  What's that collapse look like?  Inflation or deflation?  Are we going to take the world with us, or are we going to be left on an island with our money worth less than the paper it's printed on while Russia and China buy all of the land west of the Mississippi?

/I'll keep asking until I get something more than tautology and platitudes.
 
2013-02-05 12:17:32 PM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: max_pooper: Constitution for the United States of America
Article II

ctrl F "budget"
Phrase not found

It's a requirement set forth in some budget act signed into law in 1921. So, it is law. But you can check the Office of Management and Budget website to see the 2013 submission. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview) But I think they were supposed to submit the 2014 Budget proposal last week.

Not that it matters. Congress pretty much ignores the President's budget if they have no interest in his priorities. And the House has no interest in the President's priorities.


Negative interest is still interest!
 
2013-02-05 12:17:42 PM

tlchwi02: Realpolitik420: LasersHurt: .

Even if the exact figures are not correct (i.e., spend $3 for every $2), its very clear we are spending more than our government is bringing in. He is right that such a situation can't be kept up long term, and if no changes occur, our government's finances will collapse.

the problem with that is that paul ryan's solution to the situation is to slash revenues.


I think the idea is to take in $1 and spend $1. Problem is, we can't only spend $1. What we should do is take in $3 and spend $3, because that's how much we're spending. And if spending goes up to $4, we should probably take in $4.

But $5 is right out.
 
2013-02-05 12:18:03 PM

Cataholic: Realpolitik420: Love or hate Paul Ryan, but this much is absolutely true:

"In fact, we spend $3 for every $2 we take in. And we can't keep that up. If we stay on this path, our finances will collapse... "

The Krugmanites have declared we can print unlimited amounts of debt with no worries.


In your mind
 
2013-02-05 12:18:41 PM
While not Constitutionally obligated to do anything, the Executive Branch is required by current law (31 U.S.C 1105(a)) to submit a budget request no earlier than the first Monday in January, and no later than the first Monday in February. Since the first Monday in February was yesterday, TownHall is technically correct in that regard.
 
2013-02-05 12:18:59 PM
It's a vacuous point in general - If a cart heading towards a cliff doesn't stop, it will go over the cliff. Sure, okay, but that doesn't tell you how far away the cliff is, if anyone's working on stopping the cart, etc.
 
2013-02-05 12:19:00 PM
for the headline...

t1.gstatic.com
 
2013-02-05 12:19:01 PM

Lord_Baull: Realpolitik420: LasersHurt: .

Even if the exact figures are not correct (i.e., spend $3 for every $2), its very clear we are spending more than our government is bringing in. He is right that such a situation can't be kept up long term, and if no changes occur, our government's finances will collapse.


Let's start by drastically abating our Global Imperialism.


Or at least reduce the number of carrier groups by 2.  We could still be a global power if we had two fewer carrier groups.
 
2013-02-05 12:19:50 PM

Aquapope: I always thought the budget started in the House, then went back and forth between the House and Senate until both agreed on it, then it went to the Prez to be signed or not.  Did I get that wrong in my Social Studies classes?


Yeah, a little wrong. The President is required to submit a budget proposal to Congress that outlines his priorities and justifications for how he would like the money spent.

Congress can then ignore that budget and make its own budget, which actually has the force of law and requires the President spend whatever money Congress demands be spent.
 
2013-02-05 12:21:36 PM
As explained on The Last Word last night (with Ezra Klein), the White House already sent Paul Ryan a letter weeks ago saying "Um, yeah, we're gonna be late, because of the Fiscal Cliff nonsense (that you caused) that had us readjusting crap and still readjusting crap".
 
2013-02-05 12:22:25 PM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: max_pooper: Constitution for the United States of America
Article II

ctrl F "budget"
Phrase not found

It's a requirement set forth in some budget act signed into law in 1921. So, it is law. But you can check the Office of Management and Budget website to see the 2013 submission. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview) But I think they were supposed to submit the 2014 Budget proposal last week.

Not that it matters. Congress pretty much ignores the President's budget if they have no interest in his priorities. And the House has no interest in the President's priorities.


I guess you missed the phrase "constitutionally mandated" in the trollish headline.
 
2013-02-05 12:23:10 PM

Aquapope: I always thought the budget started in the House, then went back and forth between the House and Senate until both agreed on it, then it went to the Prez to be signed or not.  Did I get that wrong in my Social Studies classes?


Here's the modern budgeting process:

1.  Early in a year, the president submits a budget to Congress.
2.  The House ignores the president's budget and passes its own entirely different budget.
3.  The Senate ignores the House's budget and comes up with one if its own, but the Senate can't even bring it to a vote because the minority party invokes the filibuster.
4.  Nothing happens until December when Congress panicks and passes a bill to extend the last passed budget.
 
2013-02-05 12:23:12 PM
Townhall recycles more articles than Fark.
 
2013-02-05 12:23:54 PM
 
2013-02-05 12:25:27 PM

Realpolitik420: LasersHurt: .

Even if the exact figures are not correct (i.e., spend $3 for every $2), its very clear we are spending more than our government is bringing in. He is right that such a situation can't be kept up long term, and if no changes occur, our government's finances will collapse.


Literally the only way for the Government's finances to collapse is if people stop accepting the dollar as a form of payment. That's it. Its has to bearing on the government's balance sheets. This was discovered by economists during the great depression, but has yet to trickle down to the average layman.
 
2013-02-05 12:26:34 PM

max_pooper: I guess you missed the phrase "constitutionally mandated" in the trollish headline.


I didn't miss it so much as ignore it. I hate subby and everything he stands for.
 
2013-02-05 12:26:41 PM

verbaltoxin: Townhall recycles more articles than Fark.


And that's really saying something.
 
2013-02-05 12:26:55 PM

CPennypacker: The GOP must really want to reject this year's submitted budget on time for some reason.


That must be why Obama's budgets keep getting voted down in a extremely bipartisan fashion.
 
2013-02-05 12:27:17 PM
Household finances do not work the same way as those of sovereign nations.  You may think they do, but they don't.
 
2013-02-05 12:28:11 PM

randomjsa: CPennypacker: The GOP must really want to reject this year's submitted budget on time for some reason.

That must be why Obama's budgets keep getting voted down in a extremely bipartisan fashion.


Preemptive 0/10 because you won't back that with facts, you'll just post and run cowardly.
 
2013-02-05 12:28:25 PM

Troy McClure: 1. Early in a year, the president submits a budget to Congress.
2. The House ignores the president's budget and passes its own entirely different budget.
3. The Senate ignores the House's budget and comes up with one if its own, but the Senate can't even bring it to a vote because the minority party invokes the filibuster.
4. Nothing happens until December when Congress panicks and passes a bill to extend the last passed budget.


Just as the Founding Fathers intended.
 
Displayed 50 of 125 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report