Stock Market

[Guest]

I have one thing to say about yeterday stocks and the next 12 months . Thank you Mr. Obama he is suppoce to be the leader and he s______ us royal. He promised change and we got it right up our ___s_ take it for what its worth.

[Guest]

Who said, "I hope you like this changey hopey thing." Oh, right, that crazy women from Alaska, who don't look so crazy now. Would I vote for her, maybe, maybe not, depends on who else is running and what their platform is. But one thing I know, I will not be voting for any incumbunts, that is for sure.

[Guest]

All you geniuses give Obama much to much credit/blame for the stock market crash. Simply an emotional, right wing and hatred-filled reaction based on nothing factual. But you'all just can't help yourselves. :(

[Guest]

All you geniuses give Obama much to much credit/blame for the stock market crash. Simply an emotional, right wing and hatred-filled reaction based on nothing factual. But you'all just can't help yourselves. :(

Factual? You mean like a Stimulus that didn't stimulate? How about last summer's Recovery Summer that sizzled? How about Obamacare that has scared employers into not hiring? Really.

[Guest]

All you geniuses give Obama much to much credit/blame for the stock market crash. Simply an emotional, right wing and hatred-filled reaction based on nothing factual. But you'all just can't help yourselves. :(

You are correct.....too much credit and too much blame is given to the WH.

Of course that mantra only applies when the other party is leveling the criticism, right ? I recall Bush...oh heck..not recall...still responsible for all the ills in the world !

Having said that I agree with the too much praise and too much blame...HOWEVER you ACTUALLY DO WHAT YOU ARE CRITICIZING..YOU blame the right wing for all the ills of the market...you generalize and call all right wingers haters. YOUR attitude is the problem...it all depends on the party with folks like you. The generalizations only apply when YOU apply them.

Obama did not cause the drop...he will not be responsble when it rises. HE IS supposed to be responsible for exerting leadership and honesty, which he has not.

[Guest]

The most appropriate, accurate single statement about Obama I have seen to date:

"HE IS supposed to be responsible for exerting leadership and honesty, which he has not."

Thanx Bucco.:BigApplause:

btk

[Guest]

I called my stockbroker and asked him what I should be buying.

He said, "If the current administration is in office much longer, canned goods and ammunition are your best bet."

[Guest]

I called my stockbroker and asked him what I should be buying.

He said, "If the current administration is in office much longer, canned goods and ammunition are your best bet."

:1rotfl: :1rotfl: :1rotfl: :1rotfl: :1rotfl: :1rotfl: amen to your broker - am going shopping now!

[Guest]

I called my stockbroker and asked him what I should be buying.

He said, "If the current administration is in office much longer, canned goods and ammunition are your best bet."

:crap2::crap2:

[Guest]

You are correct.....too much credit and too much blame is given to the WH.

Of course that mantra only applies when the other party is leveling the criticism, right ? I recall Bush...oh heck..not recall...still responsible for all the ills in the world !

Having said that I agree with the too much praise and too much blame...HOWEVER you ACTUALLY DO WHAT YOU ARE CRITICIZING..YOU blame the right wing for all the ills of the market...you generalize and call all right wingers haters. YOUR attitude is the problem...it all depends on the party with folks like you. The generalizations only apply when YOU apply them.

Obama did not cause the drop...he will not be responsble when it rises. HE IS supposed to be responsible for exerting leadership and honesty, which he has not.You're exactly right, Bucco.

And you're further right when you suggest that President Bush is not responsible for "all the ills of the world". If one wanted to blame him for making decisions that only the executive branch can make, or blame him for not vetoing irresponsible legislation passed by the Congress, then they'd be right.

If you really think about it, Congress under the control of two different political parties is "zero for two" in passing two different pieces of legislation which are important causes for the increases in deficit spending and the national debt we're so concerned about now--the "Bush" tax cuts and TARP and the 2010 stimulus legislation. Those things, plus the cost of the wars, are huge elements of the debt we've run up in the last decade or so.

But blaming either President Bush or President Obama solely for the resulting problem? No way!

I think President Bush can be blamed for getting us into two wars and keeping us there for almost his entire two terms and the cost thereof. President Obama continued those wars and actually approved a surge in both personnel and spending. Those costs are on his ledger.

The "Bush tax cuts"? Bush may have suggested them--I can't even remember--but it was Congress who passed them on a purely partisan and political basis. The argument at the time was that the extra money flowing into the economy would create spending, jobs and economic growth. And if you recall, like the "stimulus" spending of 2008-2010, those tax cuts didn't have the intended effect either.

President Obama? The stimulus packages were designed by the executive branch and passed by Congress. They haven't worked either. It was a good try--something had to be done at the time to unfreeze the banking system--but long term the stimulus investments didn't work as intended. Obama has to take responsibility for that.

I think that notwithstanding the personal distaste or even hatred people might have for a President for political or ideological reasons, we shouldn't forget what a President can really do and what they are really responsible for. What they really can accomplish from their perch in the oval office is a whole lot less than what they get blamed for.

"Leadership and honesty"? How many of the following list can you give high marks to on those counts? Eisenhower, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Clinton, Bush, Obama? Not more than just a few, in my opinion.

But what's the old saying? "Heavy is the head that wears the crown."

[Guest]

Regarding "Heavy is the head that wears the crown."......and.....

"The fish rots from the head down" as Dukakis so aptly said it (and then yawned and took a long nap on the podium!)

[Guest]

:beer3:Regardin g "Heavy is the head that wears the crown."......and.....

"The fish rots from the head down" as Dukakis so aptly said it (and then yawned and took a long nap on the podium!)

:beer3: I still chuckle when I think of that picture with him in the tank wearing that helmet.:jester:

[Guest]

:1rotfl: :1rotfl: :1rotfl: :1rotfl: :1rotfl: :1rotfl: amen to your broker - am going shopping now!

That's how I feel. I took on that attitude in 2008. I am resigned to the belief that nothing is going to get better until after the 2012 election when this sorry excuse of an administration is but a long horrible nightmare from the past.

[Guest]

I hope the American people learn from this BIG mistake and never do it again. I think we should run the government like a bussiness and have a board of directors that over sees the president. Congress is suppose to but they cant do it. What happens is a mess like what we have. And I dont care no one can say that its not dem or repub. royal mess. Next time folks dont vote for someone just because its politicly correct that gets us no where. Do I have the answers no, but I'm not blind. I think the 90 day probation period would be workable.

[Guest]

I hope the American people learn from this BIG mistake and never do it again. I think we should run the government like a bussiness and have a board of directors that over sees the president. Congress is suppose to but they cant do it. What happens is a mess like what we have. And I dont care no one can say that its not dem or repub. royal mess. Next time folks dont vote for someone just because its politicly correct that gets us no where. Do I have the answers no, but I'm not blind. I think the 90 day probation period would be workable.

Reminds me of the bumper sticker that says, "You voted for Obama in 2008 to prove that you were not a racist, now vote him out of office in 2012 to prove you are not stupid" :BigApplause:

[Guest]

I called my stockbroker and asked him what I should be buying.

He said, "If the current administration is in office much longer, canned goods and ammunition are your best bet."

Better get that bunker built. :D

[Guest]

Better get that bunker built. :D

Yes, but I think I'll have a mint first.http://www.philosophersguild.com/index.lasso?page_mode=Product_Detail&cat=food&skip=3&item=2123&sortby=rank%20DESC

[Guest]

...I am resigned to the belief that nothing is going to get better until after the 2012 election...And if the majority of Americans don't vote thoughtfully in 2012, we'll be saying things won't get better until 2016.

Y'know, if some pretty good voting decisions aren't made pretty soon, I'm not going to have to worry about the results.

[Guest]

:beer3:

:beer3: I still chuckle when I think of that picture with him in the tank wearing that helmet.:jester:

LOL......thought about mentioning that too, but the "barely breathing" guy saying such a profound statement was what I wanted to focus on.

Speaking of that dopey tank scene, have you ever seen Susan Estrich, his campaign manager talk about what she thought when she saw that tank driving scene on t.v. and she had not been advised of it before? She is the funniest person (with Carol Channing type voice), and hearing her tell about how idiotic and game-ending that scene was is hysterical.

[Guest]

With 10 minutes to go:22yikes:

[Guest]

This Hope and Change, evidently from Bush, has been going real well. Obama inherited from Bush a AAA Credit rating and 5.7% unemployment and has really turned things around. He changed course and has really got the nation moving. Moving down the road to ruin, but moving it is.

And it was Sarah Palin who was the person everyone was scared of with her message of fiscal austerity and individual rights to build a life unencumbered by the heavy hand of government?

If it wasn't so stupid, it would be almighty funny.

[Guest]

This Hope and Change, evidently from Bush, has been going real well. Obama inherited from Bush a AAA Credit rating and 5.7% unemployment and has really turned things around. He changed course and has really got the nation moving. Moving down the road to ruin, but moving it is.

And it was Sarah Palin who was the person everyone was scared of with her message of fiscal austerity and individual rights to build a life unencumbered by the heavy hand of government?

If it wasn't so stupid, it would be almighty funny.

I thought he was going to be another Jimmy Carter, I was wrong, he is much worse! How can this guy have a 40% approval rating?

[Guest]

I thought he was going to be another Jimmy Carter, I was wrong, he is much worse! How can this guy have a 40% approval rating?

Easy, they only poll the middle and the left.

[Guest]

Easy, they only poll the middle and the left.

No. I think it is because most Americans know that a 2 % tax increase on the rich would have avoided this market drop. I bet the rich are down more than 2% now. Greedy ^%$#@^&^$'s got what they deserve. If the market don't turn around, I may have to go back to work.. Thanks to the GOP and the Tea Party. I am a conservative, but this was handled wrong by my GOP and now we lower income people have to suffer.

[Guest]

Right on VK, I am glad to see someone with some thought and factual information speaks out. I am so frustrated with the right wing extremists yelling and screaming so loud so as to obscure their culpability in the obvious failure of this county to manage it's economy.

[Guest]

When they stop issuing SS checks and my military pension drys up I will just issue IOUs like the government is issuing to me. What goes around comes around.

So when I get mine you get yours. What a deal.

[Guest]

No. I think it is because most Americans know that a 2 % tax increase on the rich would have avoided this market drop. I bet the rich are down more than 2% now. Greedy ^%$#@^&^$'s got what they deserve. If the market don't turn around, I may have to go back to work.. Thanks to the GOP and the Tea Party. I am a conservative, but this was handled wrong by my GOP and now we lower income people have to suffer.

The House passed the bill. Obama was warned that if he didn't tell the Senate to vote on it and pass it, this was going to happen. Obama did nothing, of course, and now we are paying for it, big time. Thanks again for voting "present" Obama.

[Guest]

The House passed the bill. Obama was warned that if he didn't tell the Senate to vote on it and pass it, this was going to happen. Obama did nothing, of course, and now we are paying for it, big time. Thanks again for voting "present" Obama.

You are so wrong, but I respect your right to guess.

[Guest]

You are so wrong, but I respect your right to guess.

Obama knew it was the right thing to do but it would not look so good on his "campaign trail".

[Guest]

No. I think it is because most Americans know that a 2 % tax increase on the rich would have avoided this market drop. I bet the rich are down more than 2% now. Greedy ^%$#@^&^$'s got what they deserve. If the market don't turn around, I may have to go back to work.. Thanks to the GOP and the Tea Party. I am a conservative, but this was handled wrong by my GOP and now we lower income people have to suffer.From another fiscal conservative...

Finally...reality!

[Guest]

Tea Parties fault? The GOP?

Thats nothing short of delusional. The Democrats have controlled congress for the better part of 5 years.

No budget for over 800 days from Obama and the Democrats.

The GOP passed cut cap and balance and the Democrats blocked it. Had it passed and been signed there would have been no downgrade. S&P already said that.

But some of you blame the Tea Party? Really?

For all you "rich people" haters, let me give you a little reality check.

Poor people aren't poor because rich people are rich.

Any one of you ever been offered a job, health benefits and a 401K plan by a poor person?

The true THEIF is the government, not people who worked hard all their lives and made it big.

[Guest]

The House passed the bill. Obama was warned that if he didn't tell the Senate to vote on it and pass it, this was going to happen. Obama did nothing, of course, and now we are paying for it, big time. Thanks again for voting "present" Obama.Those that continue to assert that "cut, cap and balance" was the way to go or even politically possible, haven't done the arithmetic.

What would the country look like if we "capped" federal spending at $3.9 trillion and then "cut" expenses by $1.6 trillion to "balance"? If the Tea Party had such a plan, what was it? Where would $1.6 trillion be cut? What would the effect have been on the U.S. economy? The world economy?

I know an answer will take more than fourteen words and will actually have to include some numbers, but go ahead and give it a try.

[Guest]

Those that continue to assert that "cut, cap and balance" was the way to go or even politically possible, haven't done the arithmetic.

What would the country look like if we "capped" federal spending at $3.9 trillion and then "cut" expenses by $1.6 trillion to "balance"? If the Tea Party had such a plan, what was it? Where would $1.6 trillion be cut? What would the effect have been on the U.S. economy? The world economy?

I know an answer will take more than fourteen words and will actually have to include some numbers, but go ahead and give it a try.

Well, they had to wait for Obamacare to pass before they knew what was in it?

[Guest]

Tea Parties fault? The GOP?

Thats nothing short of delusional. The Democrats have controlled congress for the better part of 5 years.

No budget for over 800 days from Obama and the Democrats.

The GOP passed cut cap and balance and the Democrats blocked it. Had it passed and been signed there would have been no downgrade. S&P already said that.

But some of you blame the Tea Party? Really?

For all you "rich people" haters, let me give you a little reality check.

Poor people aren't poor because rich people are rich.

Any one of you ever been offered a job, health benefits and a 401K plan by a poor person?

The true THEIF is the government, not people who worked hard all their lives and made it big.

:BigApplause::BigApplause:

[Guest]

Typical smoke and mirrors VK. We don't and never had a tax problem, we have a SPENDING problem.

The government is a big giant wasteful spending black hole and most thinking people know it.

You can type up all the 15 page diatribes you like but it doesn't change a thing nor does it make it true.

This is a government spending problem pure and simple and there are plenty of places to cut without raising a dime in taxes.

But some of us know the government NEVER does with less. Only we are expected to do with less.

[Guest]

typical smoke and mirrors vk. We don't and never had a tax problem, we have a spending problem.

The government is a big giant wasteful spending black hole and most thinking people know it.

You can type up all the 15 page diatribes you like but it doesn't change a thing nor does it make it true.

This is a government spending problem pure and simple and there are plenty of places to cut without raising a dime in taxes.

But some of us know the government never does with less. Only we are expected to do with less.

exactly!!!!

[Guest]

But some of us know the government NEVER does with less. Only we are expected to do with less.

Amen.:cry:

[Guest]

While I’m at it, here’s another big fat lie from the left. All you hear them say including Obama is that millionaires and billionaires aren’t paying their fair share. Isn’t it interesting that they consider a small business with maybe two or three employees grossing $250k a year millionaires and billionaires whom they can also fleece so they can keep spending.

Why don’t we just pound them with higher taxes, toss in a little Obamacare and more regulation for good measure, maybe that will make them hire more employees and take the risk to expand their business. The very businesses by the way who employ a good bit of the people out there… or used to anyway.

But none the less, it’s all the Tea Party’s fault I’m sure. All we need to do is tax more and spend more and everything will be just peachy.

The total lack of common sense these days is mind boggling.

Here’s a simple idea. Why doesn’t the government balance their own budget and keep their grimy little mitts out of ours? You might be surprised how fast the economy turns around and how much more revenue they generate.

[Guest]

Those that continue to assert that "cut, cap and balance" was the way to go or even politically possible, haven't done the arithmetic.

What would the country look like if we "capped" federal spending at $3.9 trillion and then "cut" expenses by $1.6 trillion to "balance"? If the Tea Party had such a plan, what was it? Where would $1.6 trillion be cut? What would the effect have been on the U.S. economy? The world economy?

I know an answer will take more than fourteen words and will actually have to include some numbers, but go ahead and give it a try.

It seems the Wall Street Journal has a disagreement with your analysis.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304186404576388061782561014.html

[Guest]

It seems the Wall Street Journal has a disagreement with your analysis.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304186404576388061782561014.htmlFi rst, Richie, I never said I was against cut, cap and balance. In fact, on many occasions in this forum I have said I embrace the ideals of the Tea Party, just not the destructive and irresponsible way they tried to go about getting their way.

What I asked above was, if the bill that was passed by the House was put into law, what $1.6 trillion in spending would be cut? And what might the effect have been on the U.S. and world economy?

Predictably, I didn't get an answer. That's because those here that mindlessly embrace the Tea Party with soundbite-type statements have never done the arithmetic. That's because the Tea Party themselves have never done the arithmetic or put forth a detailed plan on what the "cuts" would be in cut, cap and balance.

Even the official GOP budget, the Paul Ryan proposal, which was very much the right size in my opinion, only cut $4.4 trillion in spending in ten years. That plan was far from capping and balancing and would have added $12-14 trillion to the national debt in ten years.

So once more, anyone want to try answering my question?...what $1.6 trillion in federal spending would you cut in order to balance the budget? If you can't answer the question, don't bother responding with some repetitive soundbite or link to an article that also doesn't answer the question.

And by the way, Richie, the article you linked was only letter to the editor published by the Wall Street Journal. You weren't suggesting that the article stated the actual opinion of the publication were you? Or were you?

[Guest]

.And by the way, the article you linked was only letter to the editor published by the Wall Street Journal. You weren't suggesting that the article stated the actual opinion of the publication were you? Or were you?

I don't see where you get that it's a "letter to the editor". It appears on WSJ's "Opinion Page".

There are many who believe that Cut Cap & Balance would have resulted in retention of our AAA Credit Rating.

Send me a copy of the Federal Budget and I'll get back to you on my recommended cuts.

[Guest]

Cuts? Well there are a few worthless departments we could eliminate like the dept of energy, education, the arts. We can trim the military, repeal the destructive Obamacare for starters.
I think that the most hard core defense people will agree that the military complex is out of hand. Let some of the freeloader countries protect their own land and people. With satellites and pilotless drones, we can scrap alot of equipment and keep only the pertinent hardware.
Well, I've named a few. Feel free to jump in here.

Now, about those entitlements....:D

[Guest]

just not the destructive and irresponsible way they tried to go about getting their way.

Total BS yet again but a rather brilliant redirection away from those who are the truly destructive and irresponsible ones.

Yes VK, we can do arithmetic too. We earn X so we can only spend X. At least that's how it works for responsible people. Stop blaming the Tea Party.

We await your next mathematical formula...

[Guest]

Cuts? Well there are a few worthless departments we could eliminate like the dept of energy, education, the arts. We can trim the military, repeal the destructive Obamacare for starters.
I think that the most hard core defense people will agree that the military complex is out of hand. Let some of the freeloader countries protect their own land and people. With satellites and pilotless drones, we can scrap alot of equipment and keep only the pertinent hardware.
Well, I've named a few. Feel free to jump in here.

Now, about those entitlements....:DThanks for at least thinking about the question. I wish there were more here who would take the time themselves.

The problem most people fail to grasp is the enormity of the fiscal problem we face. If we eliminated ALL the things you mentioned, it would only reduce deficit spending by a small amount. In fact if we eliminated ALL items in the discretionary budget--all the departments and programs that we know as "government", Homeland Security, Interior, Education, HUD, even the salaries for Congress and the executive branch--we'd still have a budget deficit of about $900 billion each year, which would be added to the national debt.

Obviously, we can't eliminate all discretionary expenditures. But you're absolutely correct when you say, "...what about those entitlements?" But what people don't realize is how deeply those entitlement programs will be cut to even come close to balancing the budget. I've said this before here..."the necessary cuts to Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, VA insurance, etc. will truly be life-changing for all of us."

[Guest]

You totally miss one major point. More people working means more tax revenue to the government.

How about the penny plan? Roll back spending levels to 2008 and cut 1% across the board.

The Democrats won't even cut 1 penny out of every dollar.

THATS THE PROBLEM.

[Guest]

...I don't see where you get that it's a "letter to the editor". It appears on WSJ's "Opinion Page"...That's where they publish letters to the editor of the paper.

Some "opinions" are published under the byline of the WSJ columnists. Others are published under a Letters To The Editor section within Opinion. The articles reflecting the opinion of the publication itself do not carry a byline nor are they signed. Those are published in the Review and Outlook section of the Opinion pages.

[Guest]

...How about the penny plan? Roll back spending levels to 2008 and cut 1% across the board.

The Democrats won't even cut 1 penny out of every dollar.

THATS THE PROBLEM.I took a hard look at Congressman Connie Mack's "penny plan" in another thread in this forum. It doesn't come close to balancing the budget. I can't figure out why he even proposed the bill, other than maybe to get some face time on TV. The Republican leaders in the House must have seen the errors in his arithmetic too, as they haven't let it see the light of day for a vote.

The "problem" you cite isn't just the Democrats, it's the whole Congress. NONE of them are willing to do any substantial cutting of spending. Didn't we just see that in the bill passed last week? After two months or wrangling the entire 535 members of Congress could only come up with $915 billion in cuts over 10 years, with the first cuts not beginning until 2014! (That's two elections from now!)

On an annual basis they were only able to come up with cuts of 2/10 of one percent of the federal budget.....To "balance" the budget would require spending cuts of about 42% of annual spending!

[Guest]

The biggest problem facing this Nation is the the people do not know the severity of the money problem, especially the younger section of our society.
During the Great Depression, peoples heads were not into electronic gadgets or sitting there watching television. They could not get their food stamp credit card to fill their food cupboards. Young people had responsibility at a very early age. They could "feel" being poor.
People today are poor but they don't have to feel it. Where children used to help around the farm-home, at 10 years old, the children of today do nothing and stay at home till they are over 35. You take away their iphone and they are depressed. Golly, oh my!!!

The only way this country or any country will survive is a total breakdown or at least some kind of rude awakening. We are too complacent. Poverty is described as having 2 cars, television, cell phones and plenty of food stamp groceries. There was a time when that would be described as being rich.
Some how we are going to have to suck it up. There will be a means-testing for social security and other entitlements. Government pensions will have to be brought in line with social security payments. Maybe we will have to stop importing and truly buy American products again. At least that will get us working again.

Anyways, it is raining outside and this is just a few of my idle thoughts.

[Guest]

........

On an annual basis they were only able to come up with cuts of 2/10 of one percent of the federal budget.....To "balance" the budget would require spending cuts of about 42% of annual spending!

Where IS this federal budget???? Has there BEEN a "federal budget" in the last 2.5 years??

What has the President brought to the table for that?

[Guest]

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Chickens-Coming-Home-to-Roost

[Guest]

If we had the White House and a 60 vote majority in the Senate you'd see a balanced budget amendment and the required cuts to get things back under control. Thanks to the Tea Party pushing the issue.

My suggestion to those who voted Obama into office (you know who you are)... Wise up in 2012.

[Guest]

Where IS this federal budget???? Has there BEEN a "federal budget" in the last 2.5 years??...Sorry, I used ther wrong term. The two months of partisan bickering between the 535 members of Congress recently produced proposed cuts of 2/10% of FY 2011 actual spending.

[Guest]

Sorry, I used ther wrong term. The two months of partisan bickering between the 535 members of Congress recently produced proposed cuts of 2/10% of FY 2011 actual spending.

So now I ask:

Where is the federal budget for 2011, or 2010 for that matter?

You cannot blame this on the Tea Party. They've only been in Congress in numbers for 7 months, and their constituents sent them specifically to do something about this p*ss-poor federal finance mess.

The blame game has to stop.

[Guest]

That's where they publish letters to the editor of the paper.

Some "opinions" are published under the byline of the WSJ columnists. Others are published under a Letters To The Editor section within Opinion. The articles reflecting the opinion of the publication itself do not carry a byline nor are they signed. Those are published in the Review and Outlook section of the Opinion pages.

"Some letters are printed under the byline of WSJ columnists?" Really? What kind of plagiarism is that? Doesn't sound right to me. That column had the name of 3 authors. A "gang letter" to the editor?

[Guest]

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/08/millionaire_taxes_irs_calif.php
Do they really pay there share?

[Guest]

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/08/millionaire_taxes_irs_calif.php
Do they really pay there share?

I will remind you that this President appointed a commission to study the tax code and make recomendations to fix it.....he ignored it TOTALLY !

Well before any tea party

[Guest]

So now I ask:

Where is the federal budget for 2011, or 2010 for that matter?

You cannot blame this on the Tea Party. They've only been in Congress in numbers for 7 months, and their constituents sent them specifically to do something about this p*ss-poor federal finance mess.

The blame game has to stop.This post is long, but if it wasn't so tragic, it would be a fun read.
-------------
I was curious about the budget. I knew the President's budget proposal got zero votes of approval in the Senate, but I wondered where the "real" federal budget actually comes from?

The President's budget comes from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), a unit of the Executive office of the President. In 2011 it had 529 employees and a budget of almost $93 million.

OMB used to be the source of the federal budget, which was then submitted for modification and approval by the Congress. Typically, their "adjustments" were increases to their favorite departments and programs. Once approved, it was then up to the Executive Branch, thru the various departments, to spend the budgeted funds.

That's the way it was until 1974, when Richard Nixon refused to spend the bloated amount of money approved in the Congress's re-do of his budget. That's when Congress created the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Like most government departments, it's grown over the years. In 2011, CBO had a budget of about $47 million and employed 250 people.

CBO assists the House and Senate Budget Committees, and the Congress more generally, by preparing reports and analyses. In accordance with the CBO's mandate to provide objective and impartial analysis, CBO's reports contain no policy recommendations.

So, like so many functions in the federal government, we have two very expensive budgeting organizations at the highest level of the government, both OMB and CBO, with a total cost to the taxpayers of almost $150 million. Wow! Thats a lot of beancounters, isn't it?

So back to the process. Here you go...


The POTUS is obligated by law to begin the process by submitting his budget to the Congress early every year. OMB puts the budget proposal together for submission by the POTUS to Congress.

With the assistance of CBO, the House and Senate Budget Committees begin consideration of President's budget proposals in February and March. Other committees with budgetary responsibilities submit requests and estimates to the House and Senate Budget committees during this time. The Budget committees each submit a budget resolution by April 1. The House and Senate each consider those budget resolutions and are expected to pass them, possibly with amendments, by April 15. Budget resolutions specify funding levels for appropriations committees and subcommittees.
Appropriations committees, starting with allocations in the budget resolution, put together appropriations bills, which may be considered in the House after May 15. Once appropriations committees pass their bills, they are considered by the House and Senate. A conference committee is typically required to resolve differences between House and Senate bills. Once a conference bill has passed both chambers of Congress, it is sent to the President, who may sign the bill or veto. If he signs, the budget becomes law.
So where's the federal budget we apparently haven't had for more than two years? You got me. All I know is that we're paying more than 750 beancounters almost $150 million to put one together for the 535 in the great halls of Congress to approve.

But I guess like a lot of stuff in Washington these days, it's all hung up in Congress. Without a budget agreed to in conference committee and approved by the House, Senate and POTUS, I guess the various appropriations committees put together spending bills without the guidance or constraints of any legally approved budget. Yikes! Talk about the fox in the henhouse!

The budget process has been the law of the land since 1921. A budget is required by law each year. I guess that means that even with $150 million worth of beancounters, the 535 members of Congress have decided to break the law their predecessors put on the books about 90 years ago and simply operate the country without a budget. How else could they spend so much money so quickly?

Does this all make you mad? Ahhh, maybe not as much as other dumb things that happen in Washington, but it's right up there.

[Guest]

Buco,as usual you didn't answer the question. Do they pay enough?

[Guest]

I am responsible for four different budgets at my job. Not only do I have to get them approved, but I have to manage those departments in such a way as to not exceed spending and hopefully find a way to bring in more revenue, etc, etc, etc. Since the downward spiral of our economy, that has become more difficult to do. However, my feet are held to the fire to accomplish those things, or risk being replaced. So, Village Kahuna, in light of what you have reported about the law being broken by not having a budget nor cutting spending, how do we fire these guys? Surely, there is something that can be done prior to an election. Since the fox is in the hen house, shouldn't we get him out before the next election, BEFORE all the chickens are devoured?

[Guest]

...how do we fire these guys? Surely, there is something that can be done prior to an election. Since the fox is in the hen house, shouldn't we get him out before the next election, BEFORE all the chickens are devoured?Short of a quick and bloodless coup d'état, I don't have a clue how to accomplish that.

[Guest]

Buco,as usual you didn't answer the question. Do they pay enough?

The tax code needs to be reworked...no doubt about it.

And I said in my post...

"I will remind you that this President appointed a commission to study the tax code and make recomendations to fix it.....he ignored it TOTALLY !"

If you dont rework the tax code to address the problems, you are stuck with class warfare.

Please explain how that does not respond to your question ?

I am not into class warfare, as you obviously are, however I do think we need to rework the tax code.....that phrase, I know is boring to you folks...it does not make your class warfare point, even though it accomplishs what you want, I THINK....but sometimes I get the sense that you folks who talk this way want blood or something

[Guest]

I don't have a clue how to accomplish that.

How about don't vote them in to begin with?

I didn't put Obama in office... Did you?

In answer to the other stupid question. Yes, I think most people already pay their fair share... Considering about 50% don't pay any federal taxes at all including the illegal immigrants the left loves so much.

But it goes back to a simple concept liberals don't understand.

IT'S NOT YOUR MONEY TO GIVE AWAY!

Did you earn it? Why don't you give your own money away and stop advocating stealing other people's earnings.