• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

GOP Senators filibuster the Buffett Rule

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Ausm said:
Were you conveniently comatose when the Senate tried to pass numerous infrastructure bills that all died in the house?
Click to expand...

I thought it was a Constitutional requirement that spending bills originate in the House?

Fern
 
Fern said:
Bah.

You can change the top marginal rate, or all the rates for that matter, on a bill written on less than half a single sheet of paper.

Fern
Click to expand...

Good luck getting that bill passed, which is why it is far more cumbersome.

As to what sort of 'damn fool' would run a business without a budget, first of all the government is not a business, nor could it (or should it) ever be run as one. Business budgeting and government budgeting are very different things.

Also, as I stated before, the budget resolution that ends up being passed in many cases bears no resemblance to the appropriations bills that come out anyway, which are of course the real 'budgets' of the United States. It seems very odd to fixate on a document that means so little.
 
eskimospy said:
Technically yes.

In reality, no.
Click to expand...

Ausm said:
Not when that money was already appropriated...nice try tho. 🙂
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be argumentative here etc.

I always thought the Senate could tack something on to bill that already passed the House, but apparently that's not what you're talking about..

But I don't understand why/how if the money was already appropriated you'd need another bill to actually spend it. Pls explain.

Fern
 
Fern said:
I'm not trying to be argumentative here etc.

I always thought the Senate could tack something on to bill that already passed the House, but apparently that's not what you're talking about..

But I don't understand why/how if the money was already appropriated you'd need another bill to actually spend it. Pls explain.

Fern
Click to expand...

Technically all appropriations bills must originate in the House. Here's the thing though, both houses of Congress have unlimited ability to amend bills once they reach them. The House passes tons of bills that don't go anywhere in the Senate each year (as we well know), so there are tons of passed bills just sort of 'laying around' in a legislative sense. Since the Senate has unlimited amendment capability, it can take a bill appropriating $20 to your grandmother, pass an amendment to strip out literally all of the old language, and then amend it to fund whatever it wants.

So the bill technically started in the House, but in reality it doesn't matter much.
 
eskimospy said:
What results are you talking about, specifically? In relation to those results, how would Congressional budget resolutions as they currently exist improve these results?
Click to expand...

The result is that we're $15 trillion in debt, and we can't figure out how to ever begin paying it back. You may think it's a meaningless document (and congress shares your view), which shows that they have no idea how to manage money. You simply can't possibly manage your finances if you can't even create a plan. Force of law or not, you need a budget and plan if you have any chance of successfully managing your finances.
 
PokerGuy said:
The result is that we're $15 trillion in debt, and we can't figure out how to ever begin paying it back. You may think it's a meaningless document (and congress shares your view), which shows that they have no idea how to manage money. You simply can't possibly manage your finances if you can't even create a plan. Force of law or not, you need a budget and plan if you have any chance of successfully managing your finances.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of budgeting plans, they just aren't passed through meningless nonbinding resolutions. You were the one that was complaining about how they didn't pass a budget. All I'm asking for is how such an item would aid your goal of a balanced budget. I genuinely can't see how it would.
 
eskimospy said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayabusa Rider
Well then explain why generation after generation of single women on welfare are having more and more children when contraception is free? I suspect you are isolated from the world these people live in.

lol, one of my best friends teaches special ed at an elementary school in Bushwick. As for your question, it's sort of a non sequitur.
Click to expand...

Can you tell me what you mean by this? I was following your dialog with Hal with interest. What doesn't follow what? Are generations of single mothers having more and more kids despite the availability of free contraceptives or do you challenge that. Are you saying that free contraceptives don't relate to the generation thingi if it is real?
 
eskimospy said:
There are plenty of budgeting plans, they just aren't passed through meningless nonbinding resolutions. You were the one that was complaining about how they didn't pass a budget. All I'm asking for is how such an item would aid your goal of a balanced budget. I genuinely can't see how it would.
Click to expand...

A budget would mean an actual plan that passes congress and is signed by the president, creating a roadmap for all. If I create a budget at home, I can change it at will so it's not binding, but without it I would not be able to manage my spending. You need to have an overall plan, and the idiots in DC can't even come up with one. Like I said, the result is not at all surprising, when congress can't even understand that having a budget is important.
 
eskimospy said:
Since the Senate has unlimited amendment capability, it can take a bill appropriating $20 to your grandmother, pass an amendment to strip out literally all of the old language, and then amend it to fund whatever it wants.

So the bill technically started in the House, but in reality it doesn't matter much.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I learned something new about the process, thanks.
 
PokerGuy said:
A budget would mean an actual plan that passes congress and is signed by the president, creating a roadmap for all. If I create a budget at home, I can change it at will so it's not binding, but without it I would not be able to manage my spending. You need to have an overall plan, and the idiots in DC can't even come up with one. Like I said, the result is not at all surprising, when congress can't even understand that having a budget is important.
Click to expand...

Those are generally referred to as appropriations bills, and there's definitely an overall plan to them.

What you are asking for however is not at all what Fern is asking for. He was referring to the Senate's failure to pass a nonbinding budget resolution. Such a budget like you are requesting does not exist. If you want to advocate for one, fine, but it's not what we were talking about.
 
Ausm said:
What's the point...anything that the Senate would produce would die in the house courtesy of the Teapublicans we have been to this dance many many times now.
Click to expand...

And the senate will do the same with anything that the house submits. It's a political game. You just won't admit that your side does it as you're nothing but a partisan hack.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Well then explain why generation after generation of single women on welfare are having more and more children when contraception is free? I suspect you are isolated from the world these people live in.
Click to expand...

I am isolated from that world. I do not know, for a fact myself, that generations are having more children. Not saying they don't. Seems you want something constructive like affordable child care to incentives work. Wouldn't just as likely incentives partying and more fucking and more kids?

My problem, I guess, is that what I call constructive is so far beyond the grasp or consciousness of the average American as to be effectively from outer space. I maintain that folk cannot value what they get for free. Any positive force directed at folk who are fucked up needs in their eyes to come from themselves. Now how do you get something out of folk who feel empty?
 
eskimospy said:
Out of sheer curiosity, can you tell us a time in which it would be okay to raise taxes?
Click to expand...

Well you certainly don't do it when you are trying to get people to spend money to get us out of a recession. In the history of the US we have never taxed our way out of a recession. Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich, raise taxes on the poor/middle class by Insurance madate.
 
Matt1970 said:
Well you certainly don't do it when you are trying to get people to spend money to get us out of a recession. In the history of the US we have never taxed our way out of a recession. Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich, raise taxes on the poor/middle class by Insurance madate.
Click to expand...

Okay, so we got that we're not supposed to raise taxes during a recession. (your dubious insurance claims aside)

So now that everyone's on board with that, when would an appropriate time to raise taxes be?
 
eskimospy said:
lol, one of my best friends teaches special ed at an elementary school in Bushwick. As for your question, it's sort of a non sequitur.
Click to expand...

If it's a non sequitur it's because you wish it so. There is something known as "the cycle of poverty" which is the issue. How often does your friend associate with the parents outside of and educational setting? If your he or her has no idea this happens then that doesn't change reality which has been defined as that which remains when fantasy is removed. Your solution seems to be to say there isn't a problem. So be it.
 
Here is a plan lets enact the Buffet rule to make the rich pay their fair share raising ~5 billion/year.

And also eliminate the refundable EITC, so that the poor have to pay their fair share as well (hard to argue negative income tax is your fair share) raising ~50 billion /year
 
Fern said:
I'll tell you the point.

This is the election year with many Dem Senate seats up for reelection in purple or red districts and Reid won't allow a vote in order to protect those seats.

That's the real point to what's going on, and has been since the stomping in 2010.

Fern
Click to expand...

This
 
FerrelGeek said:
Based on our current level of spending, you somply can't tax the evil rich enough to balance the budget. This bill is nothing more than political show for the class envy dems. The only way we're going to balance the budget is by serious budget cutbacks and re-energizing the private sector - you know, the part of society that acutally generates tax revenue.

And of course Ausm doesn't mind taxes going up on the middle class. I'd bet he's part of the near 50% that doesn't pay FIT.
Click to expand...

If it doesn't wipe out the entire debt, it isn't worth doing! Makes a ton of sense. Go after PBS, planned parenthood, and NPR though! Big money there!

Re-energizing the private sector? AHAHAHA. Our private sector is all about greed at the expense of people. Anything that can be done to improve the bottom line will be done. Cutting people's hours so they are just under 40 so they don't get benefits, exporting jobs, etc.. our greed just tanked the world's economy.

Gut the military by 90% so that we are in line with the rest of the world and we'd be fine. Not spending 40% of the world's military while having 4% of the population and being surrounded by oceans...
 
eskimospy said:
I most certainly pay federal income taxes, and while in the short term I don't support tax increases on anyone in the medium to long term I am open to tax increases on the middle class to go along with large scale tax increases on the rich.
Click to expand...

You're not Ausm, but thanks for your reply. I noticed that he didn't. Maybe I'm lucky enough to be on his ignore list.
 
The GOP continues to shoot themselves in the foot and are still seen by the American voting public as hugging the nutsacks of the rich. This is their number one concern, thankfully they have poor sheep to do their Internet bidding... too bad they aren't enough to win elections... especially the one coming up in a few months. Great agenda sheep, keep grazing...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top