Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The federal budget consists of 11 specific revenue bills:
Agriculture;
Commerce/Justice/Science;
Defense;
Energy & Water;
Financial Services;
Interior & Environment;
Labor/HHS/Education;
Legislative Branch;
Military/Veterans;
State/Foreign Operations; and
Transportation/HUD
What happened to Homeland Security? Are we to defund an entire Department this year?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the US Constitution - "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." Presidents propose, they do not legislate.
Wow! Presidents don't legislate. Brilliant. Meanwhile, the appropriations bills that ultimately implement budget agreements all originate in the House. These however are not the budget. They are the end product of the budget debate, a debate that began months earlier when the President produced the budget itself and transmitted it to Congress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
You clearly read the US Constitution this time, which is why you are no longer insisting that the President must approve the budget with his signature, as you did in your prior post.
The actual wording used in the prior post referred to "bits of authorizing and appropriating legislation that are then sent back to the President for signature into law." The words reflect an expectation on the part of Congress -- one which is routinely met -- not any Constitutional requirement upon the President. It would be better to read the words actually written on the page, and then just stick with those.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
The President can only prevent bills from being enacted into law, nothing is required from a President for a law to be enacted while Congress is in session.
Is this not exactly as I stated the case earlier?
Last edited by saganista; 05-02-2009 at 10:47 PM..
Those numbers are ONLY public debt, and by your own accord, meaningless..
No, those numbers are the budget surplus and deficit data series for the years noted. There are no debt data of any sort included. It might simply be time that you confront the degrees of your misunderstanding of this entire situation.
I even noticed how one sentence you validate the figures because you acknowledge they come from a federal website, right after you tried to discredit someone who discusses those very same figures because they are repeated by "a software developer". For heavens sake, which is it, are they valid when posted on the US Government website, and if so, how do they automatically become unvalid when the very same figures are repeated..
How many explanations does it usually take until you grasp a point? The public debt numbers that both you and Craig Steiner have posted are, in every case that I chose to corroberate, the correct numbers for the public debt. The problem is that you cannot -- for reasons that I have detailed -- use public debt numbers to derive the situation of a concurrent budget surplus or deficit, which after all is the point under discussion. Instead, one should consult the numbers for buget receipts and outlays and resulting surplus or deficit. These data report the situation under discussion directly in plain old black and white. The only reason you refuse to accept them is that they disprove your point.
i love it no matter what office obama held no matter how long bush was in office.
the deficit is all about mr obama.
takes a real man to admit fault.
it takes much less to accuse.
No, those numbers are the budget surplus and deficit data series for the years noted. There are no debt data of any sort included.
Funny, I've included debt data NUMEROUS times which you continue to ignore..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
FY199709/30/1997
$3.789667T Public debt
$1.623478T Intergovernmental holdings
$5.413146T Total debt
FY199809/30/1998
$3.733864T $55.8B Public debt
$1.792328T $168.9B Intergovernmental holdings
$5.526193T $113B Total debt
FY199909/30/1999
$3.636104T $97.8B Public debt
$2.020166T $227.8B Intergovernmental holdings
$5.656270T $130.1B Total debt
FY200009/29/2000
$3.405303T $230.8B Public debt
$2.268874T $248.7B Intergovernmental holdings
$5.674178T $17.9B Total debt
FY200109/28/2001
$3.339310T $66.0B Public debt
$2.468153T $199.3B Intergovernmental holdings
$5.807463T $133.3B Total debt
You choose to ignore these figures for what reason?
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
The public debt numbers that both you and Craig Steiner have posted are, in every case that I chose to corroberate, the correct numbers for the public debt. The problem is that you cannot -- for reasons that I have detailed -- use public debt numbers to derive the situation of a concurrent budget surplus or deficit, which after all is the point under discussion. Instead, one should consult the numbers for bugetreceipts and outlays and resulting surplus or deficit.
The total is not JUST of public debt, but continue to ignore that fact.
Yu guys are way over my head but I'll ask anyway.
So Sag are you saying that its all funny numbers anyway?
No. The problem here is that others for whom the situation is also over their head have become convinced to the point of obsession of a bill of goods sold to them by the usual right-wing propaganda hawkers. The actual numbers involved here are garden variety federal finance. There is nothing actually arcane to be uncovered here.
That said, people are properly suspect of the numbers they hear coming out of the mouths of, for example, elected officials. Rather few of these have any deep understanding of federal finance either, but either way, they definitely do have political points of view to advance and are hardly above twisting and cherry-picking the data so as to best support their political ends and ambitions.
By contrast, the people who actually produce the numbers (CBO, CRS, GAO, Census, the Fed, BPD, BEA, BLS, etc.) are scrupulously honest and impartial. They have to be, or their data and analyses suddenly mean nothing. So it helps to know who you are talking (or listening) to, it helps to know something about federal finance, and of course it helps to have worked in this environment for several decades.
A simplification of the bottom line then would be that the numbers are good, but the people who cite them may not be.
You cant decipher this or are you ignoring these figures because they disagree with the facts that Clinton NEVER ran a deficit..
I can easily decipher those. I can just as easily and accurately note that they tell you nothing about whether Clinton's budgets were in suplus or in deficit in any of those years.
Why is it that the numbers developed and published specifically to answer the question of whether a budget surplus or deficit occurred are shunned by you in trying answer that very question???
i love it no matter what office obama held no matter how long bush was in office.
the deficit is all about mr obama.
takes a real man to admit fault.
it takes much less to accuse.
So exactly when will Obama start accepting and quit blaming? Next year? The year after? Maybe 2012? I can see the 2012 election now.... A huge banner over Obama's head saying "It's all Bush's fault"...
BECAUSE THEY ARE THE WRONG FREAKING NUMBERS!!! You cannot establish a budget position from analyzing public debt data. It is a hopeless cause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
I can easily decipher those. I can just as easily and accurately note that they tell you nothing about whether Clinton's budgets were in suplus or in deficit in any of those years.
Why is it that the numbers developed and published specifically to answer the question of whether a budget surplus or deficit occurred are shunned by you in trying answer that very question???
ANY 4th grader can tell you that if you owe more this year than last, you spent more than you brought in..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
