The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Real cost of partisanship

How is that any different from "I love these members that say read the bill. What good is reading the bill if it’s 1,000 pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill."- John Conyers D-Michigan?

Sounds to me like Rep. Mulvaney just took out all the problems for everyone by eliminating all those thousands of pages of minutiae that no one in congress reads anyway.

Does this disconnect require explanation? That's all Red was pointing out, I think.

I'm not sure if you are serious, so I will give you benefit of the doubt and assume that you were going for sarcasm.

I'm absolutely serious. You first said the president couldn't initiate the budgeting process and then you said that the president proposes the budget.

Oh come on now, no need for snarking.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76418.html

BTW... Senators can propose budgets, via a budget resolution. Its non binding but puts on paper exactly what they want.

Your snarky tone combined with appearing to show a complete lack of knowledge on how the process works makes me think you are just trolling again, because you know how incredibly wrong you are but will never admit it.

. . .

Passed committee and no vote of any sort = Reid blueballing it.

There are a *ton* of them, how many do I need to post? back to typical "ok I got what I asked for, but I am going to make up some reason its not what I asked for and hope you spend a lot of time providing even more info so I cal loltroll you again". Meh, waste of time.

Ether you or me don't have clear understanding of bill-writing process.

Here how I understand process of House-originated legislature:

House Committee- House Hearing - House Amendments - House Vote - Senate Hearing - Senate Amendments - Senate Vote - House Reconciliation Vote (if required).

What do you think happens?

Depends, what you put there is not incorrect - but anyone can propose a budget resolution. Senate or President will often create a budget proposal/budget resolution. This is non-binding but it provides both a working template for the House to start with and a public statement of the vision of what the budget should actually be.

Senate has :

1) not allowed debate/amendments to be considered on budgets that arrive from the House. This means no attempt to improve the budget has been made. No budget passed because the typical give and take that occurs in the Senate amendment/debate process has not been occurring due to Reid not allowing it to occur. Nothing amended, nothing passed, nothing sent back the House or the President.

2) Not offered its own budget resolution, which would basically outline to the House exactly what type of budget the Senate would pass. It would also provide to the public exactly what the intent and positions of the Senate majority is. If the Dems passed a budget resolution, it is nonbinding as a budget of course - but then a public debate on the merits or lack thereof of the Dem plan could take place... instead of the Dems just sitting back and offering zero solutions of their own and complaining how bad the GOP budgets are.

3) No Senate Democrat has voted in favor of a single budget resolution in over 3 years. Seriously.

----

What, are they waiting for the GOP to adopt/introduce Dem ideas on their own. "Well if the Dems wont do anything, I guess we will have to propose the things the Dems would usually propose/amend during the process... and go on record as the introducer of these leftist positions, instead of having the Dems propose/amend them like in a normal legislature where then a compromise occurs and my political opponent next election cant paint me as a supporter of said proposal." Which is exactly what game the Dems are playing... instead of the typical game of compromise and amendment football, the Dems are trying to force the GOP to introduce the legislation the Dems want so the GOP not the Dems get to take the fall in election season for introducing it. This is all new, and all Dem.

Typically what happens in a healthy (relatively speaking) Congress, is both sides have budget resolutions and/or amendments.. and once its on paper then they work at forming a compromise of some sort. The Dems wont even put forth an alternative plan to compare and compromise against, or allow debate/amendments on the GOP proposals. The GOP has to do exactly as the Dems want, and take all the political exposure for it or the Dems will do NOTHING. Which is why I said its "The Dem way or the Highway" earlier.. and was 100% correct.

Seriously, you think it is OK that the Dems have not offered a single solution and not proposed anything at all in years..? They are party in power I remind you, holding the President + Senate... and the only thing they do is poopoo anything the GOP does while making no serious effort at debate or amendment and offering absolutely nothing of their own.

And the GOP is the extremist party? When all the Dems do is say how bad the GOP is?

It must be nice to just sit back and snipe at the proposals of others, while offering absolutely nothing, not even a contrasting vision or basis of compromise... and have the media go on and on all day about how extremist the other guy is.

Haven't you been reading Sinij's posts for the last 6 months? This is Debating 101 for all Dem arguments.

For the record, I am not looking forward to going back to more contentious style of debate we had earlier. I am trying to be as civil as humanly possible in a political debate. I will appreciate if you could extend me the same courtesy.

I now see what Derid is saying, at a glance it is coherent argument. Derid, what do you think going to happen if Democrats come out with a democratic budget proposal originated in Senate? I think very much the same process that happened with Affordable Healthcare Act - filibustering and grandstanding. 'Obamacare' as we know it today is largely republican legislature that was passed by democrats trying to reach bipartisan compromise. Do you think ideal democratic legislature would have been anything short of single-payer? Why do you think Dem-proposed budget, that _has to have_ a lot of bitter pills in it in order to balance, would turn any different? Bitter pills like tax hikes on middle class and social program cuts that are at this point are unavoidable. Plus, shouldn't GOP own up to Bush's crazy spending years and pick up political cost check?