• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

What is the purpose...........

kolanuraven

Well-known member
...........of all these posts in the last few days that are nothing but just pure fear mongering?

Why?

What are you trying to accomplish?


You've got some followers here that lap it up as gospel as soon as you hit the "submit" button.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
You voted for a Marxist who promised to cut the deficit in half, but instead did the exact opposite and is projected to leave office with a 22T debt which may bankrupt the country.

What are you trying to accomplish?
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
You voted for a Marxist who promised to cut the deficit in half, but instead did the exact opposite and is projected to leave office with a 22T debt which may bankrupt the country.

What are you trying to accomplish?


How easily you forget 2 wars, their cost taken off the books, a tax cut that was not structured to EVER be paid for out the budget, revamped Rx for seniors that was also off the books....never structured to be paid for.


All that comes due and it is now.

And your Bush fellow won't even show his face in public anymore.

And lest us forget BANKERS !!! Oh, how loving the screwed over the populace of the US
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Sandhusker said:
You voted for a Marxist who promised to cut the deficit in half, but instead did the exact opposite and is projected to leave office with a 22T debt which may bankrupt the country.

What are you trying to accomplish?


How easily you forget 2 wars, their cost taken off the books, a tax cut that was not structured to EVER be paid for out the budget, revamped Rx for seniors that was also off the books....never structured to be paid for.


All that comes due and it is now.

And your Bush fellow won't even show his face in public anymore.

And lest us forget BANKERS !!! Oh, how loving the screwed over the populace of the US

Both wars being bipartisan as reflected in the VOTE to go to war.

That BS about the costs of the wars being off the books is rediculous. You can't write a check and it not be on the books. How can anybody that has a checkbook fall for that nonsense.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
kolanuraven said:
Sandhusker said:
You voted for a Marxist who promised to cut the deficit in half, but instead did the exact opposite and is projected to leave office with a 22T debt which may bankrupt the country.

What are you trying to accomplish?


How easily you forget 2 wars, their cost taken off the books, a tax cut that was not structured to EVER be paid for out the budget, revamped Rx for seniors that was also off the books....never structured to be paid for.


All that comes due and it is now.

And your Bush fellow won't even show his face in public anymore.

And lest us forget BANKERS !!! Oh, how loving the screwed over the populace of the US

Both wars being bipartisan as reflected in the VOTE to go to war.

That BS about the costs of the wars being off the books is rediculous. You can't write a check and it not be on the books. How can anybody that has a checkbook fall for that nonsense.



http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/xp-25651

But when he submitted his 2006 budget to Congress in February, it didn't contain one penny for combat in Iraq or Afghanistan. Sunny optimist that he is, Bush wasn't operating on the assumption that the mission would actually be accomplished by then.

Coincidentally, that approach has the side effect of making the federal budget deficit appear smaller than it actually is. Far smaller, considering that spending in Iraq has averaged more than $5 billion a month.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
kolanuraven said:
Sandhusker said:
You voted for a Marxist who promised to cut the deficit in half, but instead did the exact opposite and is projected to leave office with a 22T debt which may bankrupt the country.

What are you trying to accomplish?


How easily you forget 2 wars, their cost taken off the books, a tax cut that was not structured to EVER be paid for out the budget, revamped Rx for seniors that was also off the books....never structured to be paid for.


All that comes due and it is now.

And your Bush fellow won't even show his face in public anymore.

And lest us forget BANKERS !!! Oh, how loving the screwed over the populace of the US

Both wars being bipartisan as reflected in the VOTE to go to war.

That BS about the costs of the wars being off the books is rediculous. You can't write a check and it not be on the books. How can anybody that has a checkbook fall for that nonsense.

While both parties may have voted for the wars- the American people were misled by GW and his crew:

HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?

"Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"The likely economic effects [of the war in Iraq] would be relatively small... Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits."
- Lawrence Lindsey, White House Economic Advisor, 9/16/02

"It is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars."
- Kenneth M. Pollack, former Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, U.S. National Security Council, 9/02

"The costs of any intervention would be very small."
- Glenn Hubbard, White House Economic Advisor, 10/4/02

"When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government and the international community."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 3/27/03

"There is a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. We are talking about a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, 3/27/03

"The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."
- Mitchell Daniels, Director, White House Office of Management and Budget, 4/21/03

"Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for ther own reconstruction."
- Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary, 2/18/03

I wonder how many Americans would have supported invading a sovereign nation for no reason if they had been told it was going to cost them $4-5-6 Trillion in long term debt-- since GW just said "charge it"...
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Sandhusker said:
kolanuraven said:
How easily you forget 2 wars, their cost taken off the books, a tax cut that was not structured to EVER be paid for out the budget, revamped Rx for seniors that was also off the books....never structured to be paid for.


All that comes due and it is now.

And your Bush fellow won't even show his face in public anymore.

And lest us forget BANKERS !!! Oh, how loving the screwed over the populace of the US

Both wars being bipartisan as reflected in the VOTE to go to war.

That BS about the costs of the wars being off the books is rediculous. You can't write a check and it not be on the books. How can anybody that has a checkbook fall for that nonsense.



http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/xp-25651

But when he submitted his 2006 budget to Congress in February, it didn't contain one penny for combat in Iraq or Afghanistan. Sunny optimist that he is, Bush wasn't operating on the assumption that the mission would actually be accomplished by then.

Coincidentally, that approach has the side effect of making the federal budget deficit appear smaller than it actually is. Far smaller, considering that spending in Iraq has averaged more than $5 billion a month.

At least Bush submitted a budget, Obama can't get one passed and Reid doesn't even submit one. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Big Muddy rancher said:
kolanuraven said:
Sandhusker said:
Both wars being bipartisan as reflected in the VOTE to go to war.

That BS about the costs of the wars being off the books is rediculous. You can't write a check and it not be on the books. How can anybody that has a checkbook fall for that nonsense.



http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/xp-25651

But when he submitted his 2006 budget to Congress in February, it didn't contain one penny for combat in Iraq or Afghanistan. Sunny optimist that he is, Bush wasn't operating on the assumption that the mission would actually be accomplished by then.

Coincidentally, that approach has the side effect of making the federal budget deficit appear smaller than it actually is. Far smaller, considering that spending in Iraq has averaged more than $5 billion a month.

At least Bush submitted a budget, Obama can't get one passed and Reid doesn't even submit one. :roll:

So which is worse--misleading the nation and lying on your budget----- or not submitting any :???:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Kolo, THINK about this. If you go to town and buy a new lawnmower, whether or not you budgeted for it makes not a bit of difference, THE COST OF THAT LAWNMOWER WILL STILL BE REFLECTED IN YOUR CHECKBOOK BALANCE.

But, guess what, you don't have to take my word for it - you can test it. Go buy something that you didn't budget for and see if the bank takes that amount off your balance.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Not submitting a budget is a violation of the Constitution - a breaking of the oath.

What part of the Constitution does it violate?... I've never seen where it requires a budget be filed...But there is a law that requires it...

Although the Constitution does not require the president to present an annual budget, in 1921 the Budget and Accounting Act became law and laid the foundation for the modern budget process, which includes the president’s budget. More recently, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 established a timetable for the annual budget process, which is kicked off each year by the presidential budget submission. The Budget Act specifies that the president’s budget should be presented to Congress on or before the first Monday in February, which generally coincides with the timing of the president’s annual State of the Union Address.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
...........of all these posts in the last few days that are nothing but just pure fear mongering?

Why?

What are you trying to accomplish?


You've got some followers here that lap it up as gospel as soon as you hit the "submit" button.

You started with this. Your followers will be onto Three Mile Island before it is over with. No need to mention it being Dubya's fault. You all have already hit that one right off the bat.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
Not submitting a budget is a violation of the Constitution - a breaking of the oath.

What part of the Constitution does it violate?... I've never seen where it requires a budget be filed...But there is a law that requires it...

Although the Constitution does not require the president to present an annual budget, in 1921 the Budget and Accounting Act became law and laid the foundation for the modern budget process, which includes the president’s budget. More recently, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 established a timetable for the annual budget process, which is kicked off each year by the presidential budget submission. The Budget Act specifies that the president’s budget should be presented to Congress on or before the first Monday in February, which generally coincides with the timing of the president’s annual State of the Union Address.

You're lying again. :roll:

Check out:

Article II
Section 3
Clause 5The President must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."[13] This clause in the Constitution imposes a duty on the President to take due care while executing laws and is called Take Care Clause,[14] also known as the Faithful Execution Clause.[15] This clause is meant to ensure that a law is faithfully executed by the President,[14] even if he disagrees with the purpose of that law.[16] By virtue of his executive power, the President may execute the law and control the law execution of others. Under the Take Care Clause, however, the President must exercise his law-execution power to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.
If he does not "take care that the laws of the U.S. be faithfully executed", he shall be going against the nature of this clause and will therefore be acting "Unconstitutionally".

Dummy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
But when he submitted his 2006 budget to Congress in February, it didn't contain one penny for combat in Iraq or Afghanistan. Sunny optimist that he is, Bush wasn't operating on the assumption that the mission would actually be accomplished by then.

Coincidentally, that approach has the side effect of making the federal budget deficit appear smaller than it actually is. Far smaller, considering that spending in Iraq has averaged more than $5 billion a month.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/how_to_blame_bush_lie.html
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Although the Constitution does not require the president to present an annual budget, in 1921 the Budget and Accounting Act became law and laid the foundation for the modern budget process, which includes the president’s budget. More recently, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 established a timetable for the annual budget process, which is kicked off each year by the presidential budget submission. The Budget Act specifies that the president’s budget should be presented to Congress on or before the first Monday in February, which generally coincides with the timing of the president’s annual State of the Union Address.



1. Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution requires that “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.”
What does “revenue” mean in this context?
What process does Congress follow when one house has proposed a bill?
Why do you think the Founders decided that all bills for raising revenue must come from the House of Representatives, and not from the Senate, or from another branch of the national government?
If /when both houses agree on a bill, what is the next step?
2. Article II, Section 3, describing the powers and duties of the President, states that he “shall… recommend to [Congress’s] consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Yep-- BUT NO where in the Constitution does it specifically require a Budget-- the reason Congress 90 years ago passed a law requiring the President to submit one... It also says Congress is legally required to consider a budget resolution every year, BUT there’s no penalty for not doing it-- the reason Boehner wants to add in that if they don't pass one this year no one in Congress gets paid (Which Issa and other Repubs are already saying is unconstitutional :roll: :lol: )...

For many years this country operated with no proposed budgets-- and as expenditures came up they submitted them to Congress to allocate the money...
Having a budget is not a Constitutional issue...
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Yep-- BUT NO where in the Constitution does it specifically require a Budget-- the reason Congress 90 years ago passed a law requiring the President to submit one... It also says Congress is legally required to consider a budget resolution every year, BUT there’s no penalty for not doing it-- the reason Boehner wants to add in that if they don't pass one this year no one in Congress gets paid (Which Issa and other Repubs are already saying is unconstitutional :roll: :lol: )...

For many years this country operated with no proposed budgets-- and as expenditures came up they submitted them to Congress to allocate the money...
Having a budget is not a Constitutional issue...

A President breaking (or not upholding) a Law is a "Constitutional" issue.

No doubt about that.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
Yep-- BUT NO where in the Constitution does it specifically require a Budget-- the reason Congress 90 years ago passed a law requiring the President to submit one... It also says Congress is legally required to consider a budget resolution every year, BUT there’s no penalty for not doing it-- the reason Boehner wants to add in that if they don't pass one this year no one in Congress gets paid (Which Issa and other Repubs are already saying is unconstitutional :roll: :lol: )...

For many years this country operated with no proposed budgets-- and as expenditures came up they submitted them to Congress to allocate the money...
Having a budget is not a Constitutional issue...

A President breaking (or not upholding) a Law is a "Constitutional" issue.

No doubt about that.

February 14, 2012
On Monday, President Obama presented his proposed budget for fiscal year 2013.
It's going nowhere on Capitol Hill, legislators and political analysts agree. What's more, Senate Democratic leaders show no intention of presenting their own budget proposals – or taking up any lobbed over from House Republicans.

Technically, they don't have to, Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D) of Nevada said on Feb. 3. He suggested that the terms of last summer’s debt-ceiling agreement provide all the guidance that Congress needs for the coming fiscal year.
--------

The cost, say analysts, is that Congress is once again allowing the federal budget process to remain rudderless and lawmakers unaccountable as the nation lurches toward fiscal crisis.

“Congress is legally required to consider a budget resolution every year, but there’s no penalty for not doing it, and no one has any standing to sue,” says Stan Collender, a longtime congressional budget analyst with Qorvis Communications in Washington.

It looks to me like the President has done his job-- and its Congress that hasn't done theirs...
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
Yep-- BUT NO where in the Constitution does it specifically require a Budget-- the reason Congress 90 years ago passed a law requiring the President to submit one... It also says Congress is legally required to consider a budget resolution every year, BUT there’s no penalty for not doing it-- the reason Boehner wants to add in that if they don't pass one this year no one in Congress gets paid (Which Issa and other Repubs are already saying is unconstitutional :roll: :lol: )...

For many years this country operated with no proposed budgets-- and as expenditures came up they submitted them to Congress to allocate the money...
Having a budget is not a Constitutional issue...

A President breaking (or not upholding) a Law is a "Constitutional" issue.

No doubt about that.

February 14, 2012
On Monday, President Obama presented his proposed budget for fiscal year 2013.
It's going nowhere on Capitol Hill, legislators and political analysts agree. What's more, Senate Democratic leaders show no intention of presenting their own budget proposals – or taking up any lobbed over from House Republicans.

Technically, they don't have to, Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D) of Nevada said on Feb. 3. He suggested that the terms of last summer’s debt-ceiling agreement provide all the guidance that Congress needs for the coming fiscal year.
--------

The cost, say analysts, is that Congress is once again allowing the federal budget process to remain rudderless and lawmakers unaccountable as the nation lurches toward fiscal crisis.

“Congress is legally required to consider a budget resolution every year, but there’s no penalty for not doing it, and no one has any standing to sue,” says Stan Collender, a longtime congressional budget analyst with Qorvis Communications in Washington.

It looks to me like the President has done his job-- and its Congress that hasn't done theirs...

Not Congress. Senate. Because they're Dems and they won't be held accountable. 2-3 votes in two years, I think.

Wonder why Buckwheat's budget got so few votes in the Senate? They knew they wouldn't be held accountable by a Dem Pres.

You yourself said it was law to pass a budget. If Buckwheat was doing his job, he would have compromised with the Senate until it passed.

You seem to condone this "Breaking The Law" business by Buckwheat. :roll:

Kind of surprising (not really) coming from one who pretends to be a ex-law enforcer. We can all surmise you only enforced the laws you agreed with and wanted to.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
President Obama's budget suffered a second embarrassing defeat Wednesday, when senators voted 99-0 to reject it. Coupled with the House's rejection in March, 414-0, that means Mr. Obama's budget has failed to win a single vote in support this year.

Let's see now...that would be 513-0.
 
Top