7 Birthers Speaking At The Republican Convention

[Pooky 3,786]

...

Edited August 25, 2012 by Pooky

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Is that the budget that was defeated by 97 votes to 0 in the Democrat-controlled Senate?

It was actually rejected 99 to 0 in the Senate and by whatever margin in the House. Too much deficit reduction in there - gotta step on toes to get there. Congress won't stand for it. They love to spend and rack up deficits and debt. Both sides of the aisle. The GOP budget plan - despite being much more generous to Congress and letting them generate deficits at least the next 3 decades and racking up significantly more debt - hasn't gotten too much love in Congress either. The issue with the budgets is Congress. It's not Obama.

[Pooky 3,786]

It was actually rejected 99 to 0 in the Senate and by whatever margin in the House. Too much deficit reduction in there - gotta step on toes to get there. Congress won't stand for it. They love to spend and rack up deficits and debt. Both sides of the aisle. The GOP budget plan - despite being much more generous to Congress and letting them generate deficits at least the next 3 decades and racking up significantly more debt - hasn't gotten too much love in Congress either. The issue with the budgets is Congress. It's not Obama.

Then why doesn't Harry Reid let the Ryan budget go to a vote in the Senate?

Is it because he knows that when it gets voted down, the illusion of the Republicans as the party of "No" will be shattered, as it becomes clear that both sides are equally responsible for nothing getting done?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

CBPP Left Wing Think Tank

I see. Current law does not have the Bush/Obama tax cuts expire at the end of this year? These tax cuts have not been scored to reduce federal revenues by 3.3 trillion dollars over the next decade? Current law is not to eliminate 1.2 trillion dollars in spending? Remember the sequestration Congress passed when raising the debt ceiling? So that's 5.5 trillion dollars in deficit reduction right there. the other line items are listed as well accounting for the other 1.6 trillion dollars bringing the total to 7.1 trillion dollars in deficit reduction if current law is simply allowed to take effect. In other words, if Congress pays for anything they do from here on out, the budget will be balanced in 2017. And if you don't like the CBPP as a source, the CBO's baseline which is based on current law, shows the very same thing.

But I guess rolling on the floor is so much easier than trying to think every once in awhile.

Then why doesn't Harry Reid let the Ryan budget go to a vote in the Senate?

Is it because he knows that when it gets voted down, the illusion of the Republicans as the party of "No" will be shattered, as it becomes clear that both sides are equally responsible for nothing getting done?

I think Harry has a lot of stuff lined up that he wants to get to an up-or-down vote but can't because Republicans are filibustering it.

[Pooky 3,786]

I think Harry has a lot of stuff lined up that he wants to get to an up-or-down vote but can't because Republicans are filibustering it.

That's complete carp and you know it. Dingy Harry refuses to enter the Ryan budget into the schedule, because he knows that when it gets voted down, the Democrats will catch it in the neck as the "New Party of NO", at least until the next Republican No vote.

Only a vote against the Ryan budget has added significance, as it concerns the economy, which is Obama's Achilles heel. So the Democrats would be saddled with the moniker of wanting to drive the American economy into the ground. So the Senate won't see a vote on the Ryan budget, unless the Republicans take the Senate in November.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That's complete carp and you know it. Dingy Harry refuses to enter the Ryan budget into the schedule, because he knows that when it gets voted down, the Democrats will catch it in the neck as the "New Party of NO", at least until the next Republican No vote.

Senate votes down Paul Ryan budget plan, 57-40

How did they do that if Harry did not put it up for a vote?

Notice, too, that this was a bi-partisan rejection of the Ryan plan.

Edited August 25, 2012 by Mr. Big Dog

[Pooky 3,786]

Senate votes down Paul Ryan budget plan, 57-40

How did they do that if Harry did not put it up for a vote?

Pity that vote was in May 2011. Nice try, though.

Edited August 25, 2012 by Pooky

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I see. Current law does not have the Bush/Obama tax cuts expire at the end of this year? These tax cuts have not been scored to reduce federal revenues by 3.3 trillion dollars over the next decade? Current law is not to eliminate 1.2 trillion dollars in spending? Remember the sequestration Congress passed when raising the debt ceiling? So that's 5.5 trillion dollars in deficit reduction right there. the other line items are listed as well accounting for the other 1.6 trillion dollars bringing the total to 7.1 trillion dollars in deficit reduction if current law is simply allowed to take effect. In other words, if Congress pays for anything they do from here on out, the budget will be balanced in 2017. And if you don't like the CBPP as a source, the CBO's baseline which is based on current law, shows the very same thing.

But I guess rolling on the floor is so much easier than trying to think every once in awhile.

I think Harry has a lot of stuff lined up that he wants to get to an up-or-down vote but can't because Republicans are filibustering it.

You may want to check out the assumptions that go with that chart, like going from 1% real GDP growth in 2013 to 4% real GDP growth until 2018, and 2.5% real GDP grwoth thereafter, while keeping inflation in check under 2%, and Treasury jacking interest rates slowly from 2% to 5% over the next five years. Of course, this all assumes unemployment rates fall to pre-Obama levels before 2014.

Problem with CBO is, garbage in, garbage out. If you give them a series of unreasonable assumptions, they will give you whatever rosy scenario you want.

Edited August 25, 2012 by The Patriot

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Pity that vote was in May 2011. Nice try, though.

The 2013 budget was also rejected in the same bi-partisan manner.

WASHINGTON — Democrats controlling the Senate rejected for the second year in a row Wednesday a budget plan passed by House Republicans.

The 58-41 vote against the GOP budget came after a daylong debate in which Democrats blasted Republicans for refusing to consider tax increases as part of a solution to trillion-dollar deficits, and Republicans in turn attacked Democrats for not offering a budget at all.

[Pooky 3,786]

The 2013 budget was also rejected in the same bi-partisan manner.

Read your article closely. The vote was whether to debate the budget, not on the budget itself.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Read your article closely. The vote was whether to debate the budget, not on the budget itself.

That's procedural. The bottom line is that the Senate rejected the Ryan budget in a bi-partisan vote.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You may want to check out the assumptions that go with that chart, like going from 1% real GDP growth in 2013 to 4% real GDP growth until 2018, and 2.5% real GDP grwoth thereafter, while keeping inflation in check under 2%, and Treasury jacking interest rates slowly from 2% to 5% over the next five years. Of course, this all assumes unemployment rates fall to pre-Obama levels before 2014.

Problem with CBO is, garbage in, garbage out. If you give them a series of unreasonable assumptions, they will give you whatever rosy scenario you want.

Good, we're getting somewhere. Now make the assumptions much rosier than what the current baseline is - i.e. assume higher growth rates, lower sustained unemployment rates, etc. - and Ryan's budget even with those pie-in-the-sky assumptions still doesn't balance for the next three decades. Imagine what it would do in the real world.

[james&olya 1,121]

Ah, we're playing gotcha. I see. It's actually quite simple to draw the differences out. You can do it if you try.

Not simple enough for the sound-bite tea party types! Hopefully enough of the independent electorate will look past all the slick ads Mitt and his millionaire/billionaire crowd will have running trying to sell his snake oil and see that Obama really is making the incredibly horrible economic situation he inherited much better.

[Pooky 3,786]

That's procedural. The bottom line is that the Senate rejected the Ryan budget in a bi-partisan vote.

Not quite the bipartisan condemnation of Obama's budget, though, is it?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Not quite the bipartisan condemnation of Obama's budget, though, is it?

Rejected is rejected.