Bush to end war in 2009, keep AMT

Are you talking about the boobs in the white house or the boobs in Congress - many of whom are running to be the new boobs in the white house?
 
The buck passes here. Let the next guy handle it. I wish we could have referendums and votes of confidence like Italy. There's gotta be some way to get some actual accountability in our government.
 
Will nobody defend the administration's budget? This is among the most central functions of the executive branch, after all. If they fail at this, they are failures.
 
Softly-

You are not getting what I'm saying- I'm disagreeing with BC who claims this is somehow the most important thing the president has to do- fill out a budget. I would argue that it is basically irrelevant- in today's political climate what the WH budget is- it is DOA before it even gets downloaded or however it is to be distributed.

I also reckognize that Reagan had to work with a diviided congress- that was in the era when conservative democrats ruled the south. I doubt Reagan had a democratic majority of tax and spend liberals- many of his democrats were very conservative and ready to break and vote with him, especially when they could see hiim carrying their districts by landslides.

This budget released by the whitehouse is a non-starter and totally irrelevant- not any indication of failure. Further more- it should not be how the president is judged, and is not even particularly relevant to his job description as envisioned by our founding fathers.
 
I think that the answer is that Bush's budget is totally and completely irrelevant, and every thinking observer of the process knows that- you are being obtuse.

And I wasn't arguing that the president doesn't have to submit a proposed budget- I was arguing that it isn't in his top 3 (or probably even top 5) important things to do about his job- whereas for congress it is A#1. Hell, your post admits that before the Taft administration the executive wasn't even required to submit one.

I'm betting about zero time and effort went into this budget. One could argue that's about what went into some other acts of the administration, but that's for another time and place.

Plus- to the extent that the AMT is not going away in the president's budget I'd argue that's probably b/c he knows the Dems want it gone (b/c it hits blue states with high property values and state taxes like California, NY, NJ, Illinois and MA) and wants to use it as a chip later on for something he wants.

Really- you know all this though (I have to believe) b/c you are really astute about lots of ****- thus why I said it seems like you are posting flame bait.

As to the larger point on why he couldn't balance oa budget or reign in spending- I have no freaking clue. It's what bums me out most about his presidency (and the general sense of hatred that I think is corrosive to our public body- but Bush doesn't deserve all that blame by a longshot). That he abandoned his conservatism and spent like a drunken sailor.
 
No- you are not getting what I'm saying on either thread- I acknowleded to Tropheus that it's a definate black mark against his presidency and my biggest disappointment in his presidency, but argued that it will be totatlly and comletely overwhelmed by WOT and Iraq- for the good or for the bad.

And I'm disagreeing with Bozo on the importance of the role of budgeting for a president vis a vis congress. I agree his last post goes further in clarifying his arguemnt. Bush is a spending failure and it's caused by him abandoning conservative financial principles- I've admitted as much.

All I'm trying to do is give context to this failure by saying that 1) It ain't what his presidency is ultimately going to be judged upon and 2) It isn't even really his job, except to the extent that he can jawbone congress to do what he wants done, which with this congress nad this president is virtually zero.

Put another way- I bet you the congressional budget doesn't balance either- are we going to see the same posters with the same wailing and nashing of teeth for that.

The government has not taken in a surplus since Eisenhower according to BT- I've heard that elsewhere as now. if you can show where Clinton actually ran a surplus (not a projection- and remember we were in a recession the day bush took offce) please link me to it- and I will personally post the link to any Clinton basher ever that claims Clinton didn't run a surplus.
 
As someone who voted for "W" the past 2 elections, I'm highly disappointed with the budget. We need to have a serious referendum on prioritizating the spending of OUR tax dollars. I'd personally be a fan of ZERO based budgeting going forward with a vote on an outlays over $X million before they made it into a finalized budget.

The AMT is a whole 'nuther issue, but suffice it to say this is a case where once government gets used to a certain level of revenue, it's hard to downsize the spending to offset any revenue cut......and yes I'm HIGHLY affected by the AMT (Single income, married with 4 kids, but evidently am a "wealthy" American).
 
AG- thanks for making my points better than me (shaking head with embarassment) regarding BC and his contention as to waht is and is not CENTRAL to the role of the presidency.

As to your point about being decent last year about size of government but not before- that goes directly imo to having a divided congress- and the reason why it is good.

The one time I've liiked McCain most was in the aftermath of the 06 GOP debacle. He said the republican's got what they deserved b/c they forgot their principles and voted to spend what wasn't there and wasn't their's to spend in the first place. I thought he was spot on in making that point- and I do blame Bush for spending the way he has- especially when he had a republican congress.
 
Wulaw,

Softlynow has got me right. The submission of the budget request represents the opening position of a negotiation to communicate spending priorities by allocation of resources. I think this is an astounding position, and a betrayal of the people who have supported them.

Ag with Kids
In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
Collection of revenues is executive perogative, Congress's perogative is how to asertain what the executive collects.


And I think I already explained what is going on with the AMT- Bush is using that as a chip b/c he knows the dems want it done away with- why not make them fight a little bit for it. It's blue staters that pay the majority of the AMT (or so I was told by my accountant). He's pandering to his base then- under this analysis. I don't like it but everyone does it.
 
Hell no nobody's defending Bsh's budget proposal... because everyone with a lick of sense knows Bush is full of ******** (for wulaw) in his analysis of practically everyhing. Why should the budget be any different? Bush actually explains to us that if we kust "follow his plan" we will have surpluses by then end of the next President's term in office! Of course like all Bush deceit it's based on folks not looking for his ******** assumptions based on ******** analysis.


Yes ultimately the Congress Presents the Budget to the President. The President either signs it or veto's it. Bush has signed more borrowing into law than any President in our history... His forcasting is as laughable as his forecasts when he first took office to justify his tax rebates.... with surpluses as far as the eye could see... based on what he inherited....
 
Ok- we'll just have to agree to disagree- I'm not saying tha tit isn't a failure on his part- just not the most central to how his administration will be judged.

The comparisson to Hoover is basically the point I was making- he was the last president who's presidential obituary leads with the economy, and it took the Great Depression for that to be the case. Since we didn't have a great depression (or phenominal prosperity) I'm betting economic isssues are no more important than 3rd to this president's legacy.

Bush's spending sucked- I'm not disagreeing. But to say that putting together a budget is the Central thing the administration does, and is how their legacy will be judged is way overstating the importance. It's somewhat important but not the most important thing a pres does.
 
Everyone knows that the current administration is full of ****. How many times has the man been mentioned by Republican candidates for any office, apart from veiled references to "change"?

I regard Bush as a constant now- his administration is the hole in the ship that needs to be plugged. I see a lot of people talking about the hole, but nobody going in with pumps and welding equipment. Nancy Pelosi may as well be an arthropod for all of the spine that she's demonstrated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top