0
lawrocket

Which Branch of Federal Government Passes the Budget?

Recommended Posts

Quote

I see so many people blaming and crediting presidents for budget deficits.

My question - who controls the United States purse strings?



The fact that the president has veto power gives him a significant role in passing the budget, more so than any individual member of congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I see so many people blaming and crediting presidents for budget deficits.

My question - who controls the United States purse strings?



The fact that the president has veto power gives him a significant role in passing the budget, more so than any individual member of congress.



...and Congress as a whole can override a veto with two-thirds of a vote.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I see so many people blaming and crediting presidents for budget deficits.

My question - who controls the United States purse strings?



The President recently PROPOSED and sent to Congress his 2009 budget. It has a HUGE deficit. Are you trying to claim that the President has nothing to do with deficits? And who was in charge of Congress during the years when the deficit set records?

Pretty lame stuff, counselor.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I see so many people blaming and crediting presidents for budget deficits.

My question - who controls the United States purse strings?



The President recently PROPOSED and sent to Congress his 2009 budget. It has a HUGE deficit. Are you trying to claim that the President has nothing to do with deficits? And who was in charge of Congress during the years when the deficit set records?

Pretty lame stuff, counselor.



That's not at all what he is claiming and you know it.
Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

I see so many people blaming and crediting presidents for budget deficits.

My question - who controls the United States purse strings?



The fact that the president has veto power gives him a significant role in passing the budget, more so than any individual member of congress.



...and Congress as a whole can override a veto with two-thirds of a vote.



But they didn't need to when the (GOP controlled) congress passed record setting deficits a few years ago - Bush didn't veto a single spending bill. He embarked on a very costly war that had to be paid for, however.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I see so many people blaming and crediting presidents for budget deficits.

My question - who controls the United States purse strings?



The fact that the president has veto power gives him a significant role in passing the budget, more so than any individual member of congress.



...and Congress as a whole can override a veto with two-thirds of a vote.



But they didn't need to when the (GOP controlled) congress passed record setting deficits a few years ago - Bush didn't veto a single spending bill. He embarked on a very costly war that had to be paid for, however.



The President sends a budget proposal to Congress. Congress can approve it or not, no reason needed. Congress has the final say, not the President. So it was your reasoning that was lame, professor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Are you trying to claim that the President has nothing to do with deficits?



No. I count the president as "the Grand Enabler."

Quote

And who was in charge of Congress during the years when the deficit set records?



Are you suggesting that Congress controls the purse strings?

Make a stand. Does the Congress pass the budget or not?

Can the president spend even one penny without Congress allowing him to do so?

This is NOT A partisan politics message, doctor kallend. This is a matter of SPIN.

The FACT of the matter is:
1) The president submits a PROPOSED budget. Note - "proposed." I imagine my kids will "propose" borrowing the keys to the liquor cabinet and borrowing the car keys, as well, for a fun night with friends. If I were Congress I guess I would have no choice, eh?

2) Congress votes upon the budget, amends it, etc. The final budget is approved by Congress - the budget is a law. Congress makes laws.

3) The President either signs or vetoes the budget. If the president vetoes the budget then

4) Congress votes to override the veto or goes back to work.


The POTUS provides the bully pulpit. The Congress provides the meat and potatoes.

Pretty ACCURATE stuff, doctor.

Let us lay blame and give credit where it is due.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Are you trying to claim that the President has nothing to do with deficits?



No. I count the president as "the Grand Enabler."

Quote

And who was in charge of Congress during the years when the deficit set records?



Are you suggesting that Congress controls the purse strings?

Make a stand. Does the Congress pass the budget or not?

Can the president spend even one penny without Congress allowing him to do so?

This is NOT A partisan politics message, doctor kallend. This is a matter of SPIN.

The FACT of the matter is:
1) The president submits a PROPOSED budget. Note - "proposed." I imagine my kids will "propose" borrowing the keys to the liquor cabinet and borrowing the car keys, as well, for a fun night with friends. If I were Congress I guess I would have no choice, eh?

2) Congress votes upon the budget, amends it, etc. The final budget is approved by Congress - the budget is a law. Congress makes laws.

3) The President either signs or vetoes the budget. If the president vetoes the budget then

4) Congress votes to override the veto or goes back to work.


The POTUS provides the bully pulpit. The Congress provides the meat and potatoes.

Pretty ACCURATE stuff, doctor.

Let us lay blame and give credit where it is due.



Well, around we go again. We had record setting deficits after the following process occurred:

1. BUSH proposed a budget with record deficit.

2. A GOP controlled congress tinkered with it, and passed a budget with a record deficit. This budget, however, is NOT law until:

3. Bush has the option of vetoing it, but doesn't. Instead, Bush signs it, complete with its record deficit. NOW it is law.

See - until BUSH approved, it wasn't law.

Simple, really.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, by your own admission, it was CONGRESS who arrived at the final version of the budget. If the President had vetoed it then Congress would have the option to override his veto.
Since the President cannot sign a bill that Congress has not already approved, yet Congress can override any veto by the President, it is Congress who has the ultimate responsibility of arriving at a budget they can accept. Whether or not the President approves of it, in actuality, makes little difference.

Yes, it IS pretty simple. That is, once you stop trying to blame one particular individual.

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't have to be a counselor, but certainly a lawyer would try to argue this by presenting a false choice. Every answer in his poll is wrong.

The executive and legislative branches pass the budget. The Executive side initiates and competes the process, with the Legislative side working in the middle. Unless the president in part of a minority party with less than 2/3rds of the House (iow, never), he has the upper hand. This was made quite obvious by the complete failure of the Democrats to get a time table attached to the military appropriations bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

until BUSH approved, it wasn't law.

Simple, really.



Of course. And Bush should have vetoed it, in my opinion.

Now, we've got federal spending for 2008 running 8.3 percent ahead of last year's pace. The deficit for 2007 was a whopping 162 billion - also a five-year low.

Goldman Sachs forecasts a deficit of $425 billion this year, and $440 billion next year.

Gee, it appears that the Dems in Congress are doing even less than the Republicans to rein in Bush.

I guess Bush just rubberstamps spending by Congress, be it Democrat or Republican.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



Yes, it IS pretty simple. That is, once you stop trying to blame one particular individual.

;)



Well, the ONLY single individual who had the power to stop it was the president. He chose not to -not surpringly since he proposed the RECORD DEFICIT in the first place.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

until BUSH approved, it wasn't law.

Simple, really.



Of course. And Bush should have vetoed it, in my opinion.

Now, we've got federal spending for 2008 running 8.3 percent ahead of last year's pace. The deficit for 2007 was a whopping 162 billion - also a five-year low.

Goldman Sachs forecasts a deficit of $425 billion this year, and $440 billion next year.



I suspect they got that number from BUSH's budget proposal, since Congress hasn't made one yet

.


...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote



Yes, it IS pretty simple. That is, once you stop trying to blame one particular individual.

;)



Well, the ONLY single individual who had the power to stop it was the president. He chose not to -not surpringly since he proposed the RECORD DEFICIT in the first place.


Did even read what you just wrote?? Forget your prejudice over the deficit for one moment, it is blinding you to the facts of how our government runs.
Two houses of congress, the House of representatives and the Senate, had the power to stop it before it ever went to the President. He couldn't do anything until they did.
Maybe you should take a class in civics to help you understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote



Yes, it IS pretty simple. That is, once you stop trying to blame one particular individual.

;)



Well, the ONLY single individual who had the power to stop it was the president. He chose not to -not surpringly since he proposed the RECORD DEFICIT in the first place.


Did even read what you just wrote?? Forget your prejudice over the deficit for one moment, it is blinding you to the facts of how our government runs.
Two houses of congress, the House of representatives and the Senate, had the power to stop it before it ever went to the President. He couldn't do anything until they did.
Maybe you should take a class in civics to help you understand.


Ummm - on the matter of civics class: the House and Senate are NOT single individuals. Please read what I write instead of making it up for me.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Professor - I LOVE that article.

Some choice tidbits (it sounds like this guy has been reading my posts)

Quote

Since 1961, the federal government has run deficits in all but five years. Only the surplus of 1969 stemmed from deliberate policy: a 10 percent income surtax reluctantly passed by Congress in 1968.

The others (1998-2001) mostly reflected good fortune: the end of the Cold War, resulting in a 40 percent drop in defense spending as a share of the economy, and an unexpected surge in taxes from the economic boom.

Neither was a policy act of the Clinton administration or the then-Republican Congress.



Good fortune (although the budgets were only balanced by "borrowing" money from Social Security in those years) for which neither POTUS nor Congress were responsible.

Quote

Second, he assumes big savings in Medicare by freezing reimbursements to doctors and hospitals - a policy Congress won't adopt.



He is saying that the Congress won't adopt proposed policies. How about that? Congress saying "no" and increasing spending. Hmmm.... That doesn't fit into the "Bush is responsible for all budgetary evils" paradigm...

Quote

The only way Bush could balance the budget would be by not following Bush's policies.



Actually, we are hoping Congress won't follow Bush's policies.

Quote

The most telling figures in his budget involve his proposal to eliminate or dramatically reduce 151 programs, for savings of $18 billion. That's six-tenths of 1 percent of federal spending.

What's telling, though, is that Congress will probably reject even many of these proposals.



Congress rejecting proposals. Oh, yes. THEY control the purse strings.

Quote

Already, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are 44 percent of federal spending. In 2007, these programs cost $1.2 trillion, more than double all defense spending.



Blasphemy!!!! No way this fits in with the spin! Asshole facts,

Quote

But most Americans don't seem bothered. That's why both parties devote so little effort to addressing government spending or the deficits.

As a society, we seem to have made a choice. It is to not control government.



Wait. We need to peg this guy as a Democrat of a Republican so we know which side should hate or love him.

Quote

Democrats have spent seven years denouncing Bush's tax cuts, but are willing to repeal only the cuts benefiting those with incomes above $250,000.



Okay. He's a right-wing evangelical racist Republican for suggesting badly of the Dems.

Quote

When Republicans created the Medicare drug benefit (2007 cost: $41 billion), it was simply added onto existing benefits.



No, wait. He's a leftist bleeding-heart pinko communist terrorist sympathizer.

Quote

The fact that we are not debating the possible consequences is a cop-out - but it is a cop-out in which the public is conspicuously complicit.



A cop out to single out blame to one person when all are at fault.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

the House and Senate are NOT single individuals. Please read what I write instead of making it up for me.



If you'd quit the spin, your posts would be far easier to interpret. Knock off the defense attorney semantics.

We know that in the House, 218 people had the ability to stop it and did not. (This does not take into account subcommittees, committees, etc)

We know that in the Senate, 50 people had the ability to stop it and did not.

A bill does not make it to the president - UNTIL THE CUKING CONGRESS OKAYS IT! Bills need not be affirmatively stopped - they must be affirmatively voted through!


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

A bill does not make it to the president - UNTIL THE CUKING CONGRESS OKAYS IT! Bills need not be affirmatively stopped - they must be affirmatively voted through!



If they're willing to stop all government action.

That was the dilemna Pelosi faced with the Iraq appropriations. Bush vetoed their affirmative actions. They only way they could force their way is to not fund the troops at all and Bush knew this was not a politically feasible option for them.

The GOP had no qualms forcing a shutdown of the government during Bill Clinton's Administration, but that had some consequences - a company I was associated with (Silicon Graphics) was damaged by these shutdowns that froze government orders.

As I've suggested recently, we can't pretend that the government works so simply at the civics lesson we get in grade school. We have to look at it using the college version of how our govenrment works. In that one, the real world one, George Bush is at least 10 times more powerful than Nancy Pelosi. Maybe 100 times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote



Yes, it IS pretty simple. That is, once you stop trying to blame one particular individual.

;)



Well, the ONLY single individual who had the power to stop it was the president. He chose not to -not surpringly since he proposed the RECORD DEFICIT in the first place.


Did even read what you just wrote?? Forget your prejudice over the deficit for one moment, it is blinding you to the facts of how our government runs.
Two houses of congress, the House of representatives and the Senate, had the power to stop it before it ever went to the President. He couldn't do anything until they did.
Maybe you should take a class in civics to help you understand.


Ummm - on the matter of civics class: the House and Senate are NOT single individuals. Please read what I write instead of making it up for me.


I am very well aware of that. The House and Senate are bodies made up of individuals, each with a vote. The House and Senate, each as a body, have a say in passage of any bill. They can also override the President.
The President is required by law to submit to Congress a budget. He has no choice! Congress, on the other hand, is not required to approve that budget. They have the final say. The question wasn't what single individual, the question was what branch of government.
Clear you mind of your hatred and you will see things much more clearly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amazing how fast this has become the usual partisan bash.

Both the president and congress have a significant role in determining what the budget of the US government is. The president proposes it, congress passes it, the president approves it. Both branches of government share the credit (or the blame) for any given budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The GOP had no qualms forcing a shutdown of the government during Bill Clinton's Administration, but that had some consequences - a company I was associated with (Silicon Graphics) was damaged by these shutdowns that froze government orders.



Yes. I had a field training exercise for that weekend, as well, and we had to improvise a training plan that required no money at that point.

Quote

we can't pretend that the government works so simply at the civics lesson we get in grade school.



No. But we can work towards that part. Civics doesn't teach about sex, money and power.

Quote

In that one, the real world one, George Bush is at least 10 times more powerful than Nancy Pelosi. Maybe 100 times.



He has the same power over Pelosi that Clinton had over Gingrich. And yet, Congress had the balls to do it. Yes, balls. And they said, "We'll take the heat, too." Because it was about doing the right thing, not about passing the buck.

Yeah - as much as I am not a fan of the Republicans, I give them credit for having the balls to stand up and shut down the government.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

it may be as simple as that - the Democrats need to grow a backbone.

But unlike that point in the 90s, we are bordering on recession and we have 100,000 men and women in a hostile land. The consequences for this pissing match might be too high.



And the consequences of NOT doing it may be even greater.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0