Federal Budget Mess?!?

[melensdad]

Here is what President Obama just said:

"At a time when you are struggling to pay your bills and meet your responsibilities, the least we can do to meet our responsibilities is produce a budget. That is not too much to ask for. That is what the American people expect of us, that's what they deserve. You want everybody to act like adults, quit playing games and realize it is not my way or the highway"​

My questions to our dear President:

• Why didn't you say this when the Democrats controlled the SENATE and the HOUSE?
• Why didn't you press your own party, when you had a SUPER-MAJORITY, to pass a budget?
• Why haven't you pressed your own party in the SENATE where you still hold a majority to pass some sort of a budget?
• Oh, and why did you skip town today after yesterday proclaiming that you'd finally get involved?

I'm just asking

 

[sharkey]

IMO, they need to pass the budget as presented by the men and women WE elected last year, so BO can THEN find out what is in it.

 

[Bradsknives]

He only said it because he is now in his re-election mode.

 

[Bunnykid68]

There is no budget mess. This is the same thing they have always wanted, to get us arguing about why something is not being done for us by them

 

[ATOMonkey]

Just passing a budget won't help anything. I can pass a budget that's $2T in the red and stand up and say "LOOK AT ME, I GOT IT DONE!!!!"

How about passing a balanced budget. That should be the A #1 priority for all the politicians in washington right now.

 

[windellmc]

The 2008 budget that one Republican proposed (and in my mind the minimum acceptable to save this country) would cut hundreds of billions. That might be a good starting point for this year with additional cuts next year. The 2008 budget was already far too inflated.

Obama and the Democrats are crying over cutting $30 billion dollars. The Republicans would settle for 40 billion which is like doing nothing. I am disgusted by both parties at this point. They both seem quite willing to drive us off a cliff. It can only be intentional because no one who could get elected could be this stupid.

 

[ATOMonkey]

They're basically arguing over grant money at this point. No real substance.

 

[Pocketman]

This is all political showmanship. $30B or $60B or $100B from the budget may eliminate some fat and cost a few people their federal jobs, but in the big picture it will do nothing to help the deficit. Until the politicians have the courage to tackle the larger, more sensitive, issues it's all about appeasing the party base and getting reelected. The side effect is to keep the public attention from the real issues.

 

[dross]

Before we get too far into the "both parties are the same" rants, just consider this.

The Republicans were elected largely based on cutting spending. Long term, after this year, the budget they've proposed makes substantial cuts. This year, they want to cut 60 billion, the Democrats are screaming and willing to shut down the government because they only will agree to 30 billion.

This particular fight isn't really about doing anything concrete this year, it's about what will happen in the next couple of years. For all practical purposes, the Democrats are saying, "You're not going to make cuts." If the Republicans give in, they've lost the battle until the next election.

Some of you will say, "These cuts are nothing, they should cut more." Ask yourself how, if the Republicans don't have the power to cut even this much, how could they have cut more?

This battle is important because it will determine what happens until the election. If the public turns on the Republicans for shutting down the government, it will also teach the Republicans running in two years that the public isn't serious about cuts when they actually happen, and they will react accordingly.

These guys are trying to do what you guys always say they're not doing - they're trying to do what they were elected to do.

 

[ATOMonkey]

How much will we need to raise the debt ceiling this year?

 

[dross]

How much will we need to raise the debt ceiling this year?

Not sure, but we're supposed to hit it by mid-May.

 

[ATOMonkey]

We ran $1.7T in the red last year.

I suspect we're planning to spend more this year.

Figure another $2T bump to the debt ceiling, minimum to keep the patronage machine rolling for another year.

That's $16T and another $200B yearly cost increase.

I'm not ecstatic about any of this. I'll swallow my medicine, but only if they pass a balanced budget for FY 2012 at the same time they pass a deficit budget for FY2011.

 

[ATOMonkey]

In my fantasy world, I'd like to see a balanced budget amendment brought to the floor as well.

 

[mrjarrell]

Paul Ryan's budget proposal is a bad joke. The gop is looking to spend $40 trillion over the next 10 years. Cuts? Pheh. They ARE as bad as the dems, despite dross's assertions to the contrary. These guys make Clinton look like a fiscal conservative. Oh, wait. Compared to them, he was.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Clinton was fiscally conservative largely because speaker Gingrich didn't entertain any spending Bills.

 

[level.eleven]

They're basically arguing over grant money at this point. No real substance.

Yep. Government is threatening to "shut down" over less than 1% of the entire budget. Of course, government doesn't actually shut down. Essential services remain in place and those that don't get paid for a few weeks receive back-pay.

 

[dross]

What do you want them to do? It's very likely that they will be blamed by the public for shutting down the government over what amounts to pennies on a budget of thousands.

If Ryan's budget is a joke, then there's no point in doing anything. Let's just wait until we have complete breakdown because none of the things you guys want is going to happen. The public will never stomach Ryan's budget as written, not because it doesn't do enough, but because it does too much, in most people's eyes.

For once, I'd like to see an actual plan from one of you. Not a plan like, "Kill SS and Medicare," but one that can actually be accomplished in the real world. The stuff you're saying will NEVER happen, because you can't convince your fellow citizens.

As much as I might agree with you in principle, I live here in the real world. If all you're doing is waiting for society to break down, why even discuss the details of all this? None of your plans have any chance of happening, you deride and mock any attempts to work within a system in a way that can accomplish anything real within that system. Why not just admit you've given up and you're waiting for our country to die?

 

[ATOMonkey]

If there is no real world solution, then we don't live in the real world.

There is a solution for everything. People unwilling to accept the solution are living a life oblivious to fact.

If that is the case then yes. We don't need no water, let the mother ****er burn. Burn mother ****er...burn.

 

[ATOMonkey]

The time for half measures is over.

The level of debt is unsustainable. Everyone agrees on this. Continuing to accrue debt is unsustainable.

This is it, this is where we MUST take a stand. Any compromise just pushes us further towards destruction. We are not moving towards a solution by just reducing the rate of debt.

 

[dross]

If there is no real world solution, then we don't live in the real world.

There is a solution for everything. People unwilling to accept the solution are living a life oblivious to fact.

If that is the case then yes. We don't need no water, let the mother ****er burn. Burn mother ****er...burn.

The time for half measures is over.

The level of debt is unsustainable. Everyone agrees on this. Continuing to accrue debt is unsustainable.

This is it, this is where we MUST take a stand. Any compromise just pushes us further towards destruction. We are not moving towards a solution by just reducing the rate of debt.

Tell me what to do. I'll help you do it. Give me a plan.