HE: House Democrats ‘Deem’ Faux $1.1 Trillion Budget ‘as Passed’

[HailGreen28]

A real response.

The problem with keeping services at current levels is that they don't suffice. Funding needs to be better allocated rather than having more thrown at it.

For example, what Maryland's child welfare system pays for:

A child is in a residential treatment center (a locked facility for the highest-risk children), but the plan is for reunification (go back home). Mom/Dad have a hard time getting down there, so they wonder if they can get money for the kid to take a taxi halfway to help with gas. Every study has shown that the more that kids see their parents, the faster that they either go home or go to an independent living program. Either way, the kid gets out of the most restrictive environment possible. The gas? It'd cost maybe $40 every week.

Sounds like a lot, right? Well, don't worry, we aren't allowed to pay for it.

Instead, your federal taxes match Maryland's state taxes and pay $5,000 a month for his education. That's right. Instead of $480 for two months to get the kid back home and improve his life, YOU are spending TEN-THOUSAND dollars to keep him in a hell hole. That's $60,000 a year (there's always summer school for these guys). That's a well-paid teacher in Baltimore or P.G. That's a nurse at a hospital. That's the potholes in your neighborhood. That's a police officer or fireman or EMT. That's body armor for a dozen troops. That's YOUR money.

We don't need more money; we need money spent well.

Agreed. And in your example, LESS money gets spent in the matter in question, which would mean we could help more people without raising spending. Or spend more on potholes/schools/etc.

If only freezing spending, would motivate people to look for for better ways to spend money, instead of what seems a universal institutional response "Let's still spend money wastefully, and stop providing the service that's needed most, until our budget is raised."

[Peeping Wizard]

Okay then. Have fun with no federal services and extremely limited state/local services, too.

Sounds like a pretty good start.

[polywog999]

Sounds like a pretty good start.

Everybody wants to do without, for the sake of 'small' government until it actually effects them...

"But this is MY street! Get over here and fix this ******* pothole now!!!"

[polywog999]

Yeah, just go deeper and deeper in debt. :mad:

[NewCliche21]

Sounds like a pretty good start.

I'll take "People Who Don't Know What Government Does" for $200, Alex.

[polywog999]

I'll take "People Who Don't Know What Government Does" for $200, Alex.

You tell em lefty! Spending was whack during the bush years and now, all of a sudden, money matters.

[twa]

I'll take "People Who Don't Know What Government Does" for $200, Alex.

Maybe it would help if they list it in the budget?...Oh wait we don't have one:evilg:

Does that mean they don't know either?

[NewCliche21]

Maybe it would help if they list it in the budget?...Oh wait we don't have one:evilg:

Does that mean they don't know either?

Again.

Do you know what the government actually does? Honestly, do you?

Do you see how your lights are on? Government. Your water? Government. Your non-poisoned products and food? Government. You're not being robbed right now? Government. Your education? Government. Your house not being on fire? Government? Your house being up to code? Government. Your right to free speech? Government. Your right to exist? Government. Your flag? Government.

Literally everything that you do, are allowed to do, or are protected from comes from government. Have fun shutting that down in order to make a smartass comment.

[mcsluggo]

ah... another angry circle jerk.... !

whoduv thunkit?

[twa]

Literally everything that you do, are allowed to do, or are protected from comes from government. Have fun shutting that down in order to make a smartass comment.

Do you know the difference between Fed ,State and Municipal?

Attitudes like yours are the reason this country's going to **** and govt is failing in it's duties....and likely result from sucking on the govt's tit.:saber:

[mardi gras skin]

Your house not being on fire? Government

My house isn't on fire because of the government. Awesome.

[NewCliche21]

Do you know the difference between Fed ,State and Municipal?

Attitudes like yours are the reason this country's going to **** and govt is failing in it's duties....and likely result from sucking on the govt's tit.:saber:

Because the federal government has nothing to do with states or municipalities?

Just because your grammar shows that fifth grade English wasn't for you doesn't mean that Social Studies had to be a victim, too! :pfft:

[DieselPwr44]

When Newt Gingrich and the Repubs shut down the government back in 94, a funny thing happened around here...

My house didn't burn down

I didn't get robbed

I was still employed

I had running water and lights...plus food!

And the world didn't end.

That must be a trip for a Nanny Stater like NC21...............

[Hubbs]

Man, this is going way beyond your standard pot-and-kettle fight. It's more like Clayton Bigsby was cloned, and both he and his clone are trying to lynch each other.

:munchout:

[twa]

Because the federal government has nothing to do with states or municipalities?

Just because your grammar shows that fifth grade English wasn't for you doesn't mean that Social Studies had to be a victim, too! :pfft:

Certainly they do....they rob them and then deem what they will 'give' back:D

Of course it might work different up yonder .......grammar:ols:

[The Evil Genius]

Maybe it would help if they list it in the budget?...Oh wait we don't have one:evilg:

Does that mean they don't know either?

Wait - we don't have a Federal Budget for this FY - the one that hasn't ended and won't end until October 1, 2010? Are we still on continuing resolutions? Is this like 2002, 2004, and 2006 when the GOP couldn't get a budget passed either, despite being the majority party?

[Predicto]

When Newt Gingrich and the Repubs shut down the government back in 94, a funny thing happened around here...

My house didn't burn down

I didn't get robbed

I was still employed

I had running water and lights...plus food!

And the world didn't end.

That must be a trip for a Nanny Stater like NC21...............

Say, how did that work out for old Newt and the GOP?

[Predicto]

Wait - we don't have a Federal Budget for this FY - the one that hasn't ended and won't end until October 1, 2010? Are we still on continuing resolutions? Is this like 2002, 2004, and 2006 when the GOP couldn't get a budget passed either, despite being the majority party?

Shhh, that was different.

This time it's a CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS!!!

[twa]

Shhh, that was different.

Yes.....at least the House passed a budget then.

Let's hear it for transparency and kicking ass.

[DieselPwr44]

Say, how did that work out for old Newt and the GOP?

It forced Clinton to the table and to totally change his stance on the budget/deficit.

But you'll respond with a scoff and say something along the lines that I'm delusional/crazy.

You know, the typical canned left response.:evilg:

[Predicto]

It forced Clinton to the table and to totally change his stance on the budget/deficit.

But you'll respond with a scoff and say something along the lines that I'm delusional/crazy.

You know, the typical canned left response.:evilg:

Nah, you are partially right.

[MurrayH81]

So you guys would rather have the government just not operate? Really?.

I think they could pass an emergency supplemental that allowed them to operate while they compiled a real budget. I believe this has been done in the past. The tactic they chose is to defer any real decision making and hide what they did via a deeming mechanism.

Okay then. Have fun with no federal services and extremely limited state/local services, too.

That would be fine with me. I realize it is not everyone's cup of tea, but I would prefer this over what has happened.

What bugs me is that they should have been able to get a budget together. They are derelict in their responsibility. If they needed to revise it or ammend it later so be it, but this is one of their primary functions... and they ain't getting it done.

I agree. This is their primary job responsibility. They eagerly sought these jobs, and now have used (essentially) the same mechanism to avoid the political consequences for their actions (or non-actions if you prefer). Just when is it okay for an employee to perform their primary job function, and keep their job?

I'm still trying to determine if they are abdicating their power/responsibility....or simply acknowledging their incompetence.

Unfortunately, history has shown that Congress is quite adept at abdicating their power/responsibility (war powers, etc), so that is the way I am viewing this.

if it is bipartisan or single party matters little to me.

Do your damn job and answer for your choices.

Yes, I can only hope people will start holding those they elect responsible for their decisions. That is the only thing that can save us IMO.

You're actually impossible to talk to about this, so I'll stop.

For the future, and I mean this:

Talking points, canned responses, declarative statements, and the like don't foster a good debate. It's hard to take your point seriously when you don't seem to have one of your own.

You aren't trying to debate this issue, you are simply saying that "it was or is too hard for them to do their job, so we have to accept this procedural move." With that as your starting point, it's pretty hard to have a debate with you on this subject, because you have already determined that they did the only thing possible, and any voice to the contrary is being [insert your choice of pejorative here].

Again.

Do you know what the government actually does? Honestly, do you?

Literally everything that you do, are allowed to do, or are protected from comes from government. Have fun shutting that down in order to make a smartass comment.

I beg to differ. The 10th Ammendment to the US Constitution states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So your argument regarding what I do or am allowed to do is kind of moot.

I do agree that the Federal Government does provide invaluable services and protections that all of us rely upon. I am willing to sacrifice some of them until Congress feels enough pressure to do their job. Some others, likely inclusive of yourself, may not be. That's okay - we can debate that or simply acknowledge our differences.

[81artmonk]

:doh:

this is why we need to vote them ALL out come nov. Start fresh.

[twa]

I wonder if this is a factor in the refusal to make a budget?

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/us-ends-june-132-trillion-debt-adds-210-billion-total-debt-track-breach-debt-ceiling-under-s

In case one is wondering why the House Democrats attached a document to the emergency war supplemental bill that "deemed as passed" a non-existent $1.12 trillion budget, which basically allows the ruling party to start spending money for Fiscal Year 2011 without the constraint of an actual budget, here is the answer: on June 30, the US closed the books with just over $13.2 trillion in total debt, an increase of $210 billion in one month, or $2.5 trillion annualized. There is just $1.1 trillion left on the ceiling. As we have long been warning, at the current run rate, the ceiling will be breached in under six months, or just around November 2

[NewCliche21]

When Newt Gingrich and the Repubs shut down the government back in 94, a funny thing happened around here...

My house didn't burn down

I didn't get robbed

I was still employed

I had running water and lights...plus food!

And the world didn't end.

That must be a trip for a Nanny Stater like NC21...............

I'm wondering what a "Nanny Stater" is.

If people want to shut down the government, then those things go away. There is a difference between furloughs and getting rid of the government. You may want to watch your hyperbole.

I think they could pass an emergency supplemental that allowed them to operate while they compiled a real budget. I believe this has been done in the past. The tactic they chose is to defer any real decision making and hide what they did via a deeming mechanism.

That's irrelevant to this conversation.

That would be fine with me. I realize it is not everyone's cup of tea, but I would prefer this over what has happened.

So you would go without all services in order to prove a point. You're pretty cool.

I agree. This is their primary job responsibility. They eagerly sought these jobs, and now have used (essentially) the same mechanism to avoid the political consequences for their actions (or non-actions if you prefer). Just when is it okay for an employee to perform their primary job function, and keep their job?

No argument there.

Unfortunately, history has shown that Congress is quite adept at abdicating their power/responsibility (war powers, etc), so that is the way I am viewing this.

Or there.

Yes, I can only hope people will start holding those they elect responsible for their decisions. That is the only thing that can save us IMO.

Yes, and that means working together.

You aren't trying to debate this issue, you are simply saying that "it was or is too hard for them to do their job, so we have to accept this procedural move." With that as your starting point, it's pretty hard to have a debate with you on this subject, because you have already determined that they did the only thing possible, and any voice to the contrary is being [insert your choice of pejorative here].

Just because you have difficulty in debates and interpreting what I'm saying does not mean that I have an equal difficulty with debates, but nice try. "They" = Congress, not Democrats. When everything is filibustered at every turn, how do you expect anything to get done? Just because you don't like the outcome does not mean that it was one of many outcomes that could have happened, because it realistically wasn't.

I beg to differ. The 10th Ammendment to the US Constitution states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So your argument regarding what I do or am allowed to do is kind of moot.

I do agree that the Federal Government does provide invaluable services and protections that all of us rely upon. I am willing to sacrifice some of them until Congress feels enough pressure to do their job. Some others, likely inclusive of yourself, may not be. That's okay - we can debate that or simply acknowledge our differences.

The federal government gives matching funds, whether dollar for dollar or more or less, for nearly every state program, which in turn gives money for every local program. My argument about what you're allowed to do has everything to do with money. Again, just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it's not true.

I feel that you and those with whom you agree do not understand how important government services are to you. Try going without a federal government for a year and see if your power is still on, your food is still fresh, your things are still in your possession, etc. It won't happen. Want examples? Take a trip east and look at Africa.