Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, I was reading this article on the RCPz, and came across a line, thusly:

Despite the fiscal crisis that Washington knows will occur if it fails to deal with unsustainable spending and debt, it hasn’t managed to produce a federal budget in more than three years.

So. Usually these sorts of openers are the prelude to some sort of argument. I assure you, this is not the case. I have no point I'm trying to raise, no argument I'm trying to hammer. This is an actual question, here. Why do people say this? I have a co-worker who said this a few times (he's a conservative, if that's relevant, I do not know if it is). Anyway - is it true? Because I see this and this and this, and I think, those look like budgets to me.

But you know what, I'm really not an expert. Maybe these guys are liars, but, maybe there is some reason, totally unbeknownst to me but explainable by you(s) why those things, RAW, are not budgets. What is it?

Thanks!

Maybe they mean pass it clean, with no squabling or give-aways? I have no idea, I don't follow American politics, that just seems like one of the things which might be distinguished between a (completely clean) budget and a (sullied and dirtied, therefore not a real to some people) budget.

Ouze wrote:
But you know what, I'm really not an expert. Maybe these guys are liars, but, maybe there is some reason, totally unbeknownst to me but explainable by you(s) why those things, RAW, are not budgets. What is it?

They were all passed in the short term, not for the year. When most people say "budget" with respect to the federal government they mean "annual budget."

Well, unfortunately it comes down to playing politics.

The Republican House passed a spending bill the Democrat Senate calls it dead on arrival.

The Democrat Senate passed a spending bill the Republican House calls it dead on arrival.

And of coarse, they complain that a budget hasn't been passed by both.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
All they are doing is little patch jobs.

dogma wrote:

Ouze wrote:
But you know what, I'm really not an expert. Maybe these guys are liars, but, maybe there is some reason, totally unbeknownst to me but explainable by you(s) why those things, RAW, are not budgets. What is it?

They were all passed in the short term, not for the year. When most people say "budget" with respect to the federal government they mean "annual budget."

Pretty much this.

Budget: Comprehensive annual document outlining the goal for the different departments, a summary of the changes being made, where the money is going. This has not been passed in a few years. The budget itself doesn't really pay anything if I am not mistaken, but it is the blueprint for all the different spending bills that need to be passed through the year.

What we have passed are "continuing budget resolutions" or something along those lines. Instead of actually making a budget they just wait until a particular agency or area is close to loosing it's funding, then they look at the particular spending allocated to them (like Transportation, Defense, FAA). They look at the old spending for the agency and either say "ditto" and keep the same bill they passed previously, or start making chances to it. So they still pass the individual parts of a budget, but there is no grand vision or plan for our spending.

Everybody blames everybody else is pretty much par for the course.

Obama has introduced his blue print every year, although he has almost always been past the deadline.

House and Senate then punt the ball back and forth and nothing gets done.

Pack yer bags, thar's an apocalypse on the morrow!

having a budget implies of having a spending PLAN...

otherwise, any issues with the status quo stays basically the same...

You can't tackle the issues w/o having an actualized budget PLAN. That includes tax increase/decrease, spendings (and cuts) and any administrative changes.

Obama's last budget proposal was shot down by the Democratic controlled Senate 99-0.

Two years in a row.

Spacemanvic wrote:Obama's last budget proposal was shot down by the Democratic controlled Senate 99-0.

Two years in a row.

Nope.

A republican version of the "Obama Budget" was shot down. But nice try.

d-usa wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:Obama's last budget proposal was shot down by the Democratic controlled Senate 99-0.

Two years in a row.

Nope.

A republican version of the "Obama Budget" was shot down. But nice try.

Nope... wrong again...
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/house-and-senate-unanimously-reject-obama-budget
linky dont' work???
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/16/obama-budget-defeated-99-0-senate/

whembly wrote:

d-usa wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:Obama's last budget proposal was shot down by the Democratic controlled Senate 99-0.

Two years in a row.

Nope.

A republican version of the "Obama Budget" was shot down. But nice try.

Nope... wrong again...
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/house-and-senate-unanimously-reject-obama-budget
linky dont' work???
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/16/obama-budget-defeated-99-0-senate/

Did you actually read the article? It was put forward by Sessions, a Republican, as a lampoon aimed at Obama. It was never intended to be serious or to pass. It was a giant middle finger aimed square at the President of the United States.

whembly wrote:

d-usa wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:Obama's last budget proposal was shot down by the Democratic controlled Senate 99-0.

Two years in a row.

Nope.

A republican version of the "Obama Budget" was shot down. But nice try.

Nope... wrong again...
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/house-and-senate-unanimously-reject-obama-budget
linky dont' work???
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/16/obama-budget-defeated-99-0-senate/

Do you read your own links?

-Obama presents 2000 page budget.
-Republican presents 56 page budget, says "it's totally the same as the 2000 page version, trust us"
-Republican version gets defeated
-Republicans say "Obama's budget got defeated!"
-???????
-Profit

I mean, if you want to be totally serious instead of playing political gimmicks you can always say that not even Democrats have presented the real Obama budget for a vote. We could argue about the motives, but at least that would be a fact.

d-usa wrote:

whembly wrote:

d-usa wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:Obama's last budget proposal was shot down by the Democratic controlled Senate 99-0.

Two years in a row.

Nope.

A republican version of the "Obama Budget" was shot down. But nice try.

Nope... wrong again...
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/house-and-senate-unanimously-reject-obama-budget
linky dont' work???
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/16/obama-budget-defeated-99-0-senate/

Do you read your own links?

-Obama presents 2000 page budget.
-Republican presents 56 page budget, says "it's totally the same as the 2000 page version, trust us"
-Republican version gets defeated
-Republicans say "Obama's budget got defeated!"
-???????
-Profit

I mean, if you want to be totally serious instead of playing political gimmicks you can always say that not even Democrats have presented the real Obama budget for a vote. We could argue about the motives, but at least that would be a fact.

Hey I detest that tactic... it's the same sort of tactic that got us the ACA act.

They "used all of the president's numbers in the proposal, so it faithfully represented his plan." and that they "even challenged Democrats to point out any errors in the numbers and he would correct them — a challenge no Democrats took up."

So, what it was to a political ploy to call Obama's bluff...

It was, here's this polished turd pile. Try passing it!

Rep said: "Okay, let's put this turd pile to vote".

Bluff called. That way, Obama couldn't point to the House saying they didn't do anything.

It was pure political hackary... from BOTH SIDES.

d-usa wrote:

whembly wrote:

d-usa wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:Obama's last budget proposal was shot down by the Democratic controlled Senate 99-0.

Two years in a row.

Nope.

A republican version of the "Obama Budget" was shot down. But nice try.

Nope... wrong again...
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/house-and-senate-unanimously-reject-obama-budget
linky dont' work???
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/16/obama-budget-defeated-99-0-senate/

Do you read your own links?

-Obama presents 2000 page budget.
-Republican presents 56 page budget, says "it's totally the same as the 2000 page version, trust us"
-Republican version gets defeated
-Republicans say "Obama's budget got defeated!"
-???????
-Profit

I mean, if you want to be totally serious instead of playing political gimmicks you can always say that not even Democrats have presented the real Obama budget for a vote. We could argue about the motives, but at least that would be a fact.

I must have missed where the Senate passed the 2,000 unadulterated Obama version. Oh wait...

whembly wrote:It was, here's this polished turd pile. Try passing it!

Careful, your bias is showing.

It was not the Obama budget that was presented, it was a 56 page Republican interpretation of what the 2000 page Obama budget says that was presented.

Frazzled wrote:

d-usa wrote:

whembly wrote:

d-usa wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:Obama's last budget proposal was shot down by the Democratic controlled Senate 99-0.

Two years in a row.

Nope.

A republican version of the "Obama Budget" was shot down. But nice try.

Nope... wrong again...
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/house-and-senate-unanimously-reject-obama-budget
linky dont' work???
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/16/obama-budget-defeated-99-0-senate/

Do you read your own links?

-Obama presents 2000 page budget.
-Republican presents 56 page budget, says "it's totally the same as the 2000 page version, trust us"
-Republican version gets defeated
-Republicans say "Obama's budget got defeated!"
-???????
-Profit

I mean, if you want to be totally serious instead of playing political gimmicks you can always say that not even Democrats have presented the real Obama budget for a vote. We could argue about the motives, but at least that would be a fact.

I must have missed where the Senate passed the 2,000 unadulterated Obama version. Oh wait...

Highlighted the relevant part in my post where I already said that

And why not? I'm genuinely perplexed as to what the Senate does 99.99% of the time at this point.

From what I've gleaned from so many insightful posts, I would assume they rake in the cash and smoke cigars.

d-usa wrote:

whembly wrote:It was, here's this polished turd pile. Try passing it!

Careful, your bias is showing.

It was not the Obama budget that was presented, it was a 56 page Republican interpretation of what the 2000 page Obama budget says that was presented.

Okay... I'll make it public... I like Ryan (but I have my reservations with Romney).

True... and I already said it's a detestable tactic..

But having said that, the "numbers" match... all Sessions did was removed the "campaign speech" from Obama's original budget, leaving the actual plans (the numbers) intact. What this does is illuminated what the plan entails.

But both sides do it all time...

So what we have here is that Obama knew it wouldn't pass, so he retched up the campaign retoric for this bill in an attempt to say "see, I was working HARD to get something done, but those rascally Republican kids got in my way" and the House Republican called his bluff.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

MrDwhitey wrote:From what I've gleaned from so many insightful posts, I would assume they rake in the cash and smoke cigars.

Yup... I'm in the wrong business...

Frazzled wrote:And why not? I'm genuinely perplexed as to what the Senate does 99.99% of the time at this point.

No idea.

1) Maybe the Democrats in the senate love the budget but they know it has a snowballs chance in hell to actually get anywhere. (aka: why waste our time)
2) Maybe the budget has some tough love cuts that the Democrats don't want in fear of alienating their base in an election year so it is more convinient for them to blame the Republicans for stalling while at the same time refusing to put it up for a vote. (aka: If I vote for it, it would make my district/state angry)
3) Maybe they know that giving the Republicans an opportunity to vote against the actual budget would help the Republicans in an election year. (aka: If they vote against it, it would make their district/state happy because they stood up to Obama)
4) Maybe the budget is total gak.
5) Maybe it is some other reason, but I am sure politics is a part of it (they are politicians after all).

But I know that saying "Obama never introduced a budget" is wrong, and "even Democrats voted against Obama's budget is wrong".
But "Obama was late in presenting his budget" is right, "We have not passed a budget" is right, and "even Democrats have refused to put the Obama budget up for a vote" is also right.

Ouze: I want to say the last budget that was actually passed was under Clinton. The Omnibus Spending Bill was still just a spending bill, not a budget.
That's why people say a budget hasn't been passed. There's also been plenty of ink spilled over whether or not we really need to.

Thank you all for the information. I know a lot more on this now then I did previously.