Writerbuckeye;409288 wrote:Over the last 100 years, Democrats have been in charge of Congress FAR more than Republicans.

It's not even close.

Our nation's debt has been a cumulative process and both parties have been complicit -- but the Democrats have had the power of the checkbook far more often than the Republicans have, and they've USED it more liberally (pun intended).

The most egregious example of this has been the UNPRECEDENTED amount of spending this Democrat-controlled Congress has spent during the past four years (since they regained control from one of the few times Republicans had control).

Democrats should never --- EVER -- be at the forefront of criticizing anyone when it comes to controlling budgets. They've had far more opportunities to do it and failed.

Who has the final say so on spending bills? The Congress or the President? Are you telling me that it was the Congress that escalated the huge increase of military spending during the 80"s?
Your post emphasizes the misinformation that Republicans believe. Your assertions are simply false.

Who controls the purse strings in Congress as set by the Constitution?

The House.

If Congress truly wants spending to be cut or expanded -- they have the final say.

It's always been that way. All the president can do is influence and veto if he doesn't get his way -- but the last word has always been, and always will come from Congress.

That's a fact.

The president has the final say so on ALL SPENDING bills. Unless it is overridden by a 2/3 vote. If the president wants to reduce spending, then all he has to do is veto the damn thing. Period.

"The Budget of the United States Government is the President's proposal to the U.S. Congress which recommends funding levels for the next fiscal year, beginning October 1. Congressional decisions are governed by rules and legislation regarding the federal budget process. Budget committees set spending limits for the House and Senate committees and for Appropriations subcommittees, which then approve individual appropriations bills to allocate funding to various federal programs.

After Congress approves an appropriations bill, it is sent to the President, who may sign it into law, or may veto it. A vetoed bill is sent back to Congress, which can pass it into law with a two-thirds majority in each chamber. Congress may also combine all or some appropriations bills into an omnibus reconciliation bill. In addition, the president may request and the Congress may pass supplemental appropriations bills or emergency supplemental appropriations bills.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

^^^ That's correct and as you mentioned above the Dems have controlled the Confessional purse strings far, far longer than the Repubs in the past century...INCLUDING the Congresses that Reagan had to work with. That is also a fact.

Footwedge;409305 wrote:The president has the final say so on ALL SPENDING bills. Unless it is overridden by a 2/3 vote. If the president wants to reduce spending, then all he has to do is veto the damn thing. Period.

"The Budget of the United States Government is the President's proposal to the U.S. Congress which recommends funding levels for the next fiscal year, beginning October 1. Congressional decisions are governed by rules and legislation regarding the federal budget process. Budget committees set spending limits for the House and Senate committees and for Appropriations subcommittees, which then approve individual appropriations bills to allocate funding to various federal programs.

After Congress approves an appropriations bill, it is sent to the President, who may sign it into law, or may veto it. A vetoed bill is sent back to Congress, which can pass it into law with a two-thirds majority in each chamber. Congress may also combine all or some appropriations bills into an omnibus reconciliation bill. In addition, the president may request and the Congress may pass supplemental appropriations bills or emergency supplemental appropriations bills.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

Do you even read what you post?

The president RECOMMENDS spending levels but it is the various committees within Congress that end up making the final call.

^^^Stop beating your head against the wall. Blood is spurting everywhere!

Yeah, yeah, I know. But I get sick of Democrats always pointing back to the few years the Republicans had Congress and exclaim: Why didn't you do such and such when you had control?

While that may be a good question, it ignores the FACT that Congress has been controlled by Democrats almost 3/4 of the time in our nation's history. The greatest expansions of government have happened because those Congress' approved the growth. A president may have wanted it, but Congress has the final say.

It's textbook civics, but apparently a few of the posters on here missed class that day.

Here's the deal........

The Republican Party exists solely to give Democrats and alleged "independents" someone to blame. I'm thinking the GOP should switch its mascot from an elephant to a scapegoat.

That being said are the Repubs also to blame for the mess we're in? Yep. They blew a GOLDEN opportunity in the 90's to make positive change but they acted and spent like Dems. The strange thing is we can attribute current Dem rule in Washington on the Repubs because they behaved like Dems. I'm still trying to wrap my arms around that one.

The Dems want to blame the deficits on tax cuts but refuse to cut spending to compensate. The scary thing is once the tax cuts expire you would think the deficits would decrease. But with this wily bunch running the show on Capitol Hill you can rest assured they are licking their chops in anticipation of spending the new-found bounty. Scary, scary stuff.

Footwedge;409241 wrote:Actually, Bush did. Now granted that was over a longer time period. As a percentage, you might want to look up Reagan. He spent more per year on a percentage basis. And BTW, I'm not defending the outrageous spending that Obama is doing. He is a fool for doing what he's doing. But as long as he allows an annual budget of 1 trillion for defense purposes, the uncontrolled spiral will continue.

Um...to clarify, Obama has spent nearly as much in 1.5 years as Bush did in 8. So yeah, technically bush spent more, but not on a yearly or even percentage of GDP basis.

Footwedge;409294 wrote:Who has the final say so on spending bills? The Congress or the President? Are you telling me that it was the Congress that escalated the huge increase of military spending during the 80"s?
Your post emphasizes the misinformation that Republicans believe. Your assertions are simply false.

Actually since Congress controls the budget and the President can only submit a budget but the Congress then does whatever it wants with it.

Take a civics class if you don't believe that.

Footwedge;409305 wrote:The president has the final say so on ALL SPENDING bills. Unless it is overridden by a 2/3 vote.

Did you really just contradict yourself THAT bad?



You start off by saying the President has the last say, but then you admit the Congress does, so make up your mind, which is it?

jmog;409571 wrote:Did you really just contradict yourself THAT bad?



You start off by saying the President has the last say, but then you admit the Congress does, so make up your mind, which is it?

Why don't you look up the last time a vetoed bill was overriden by the 2 legislative bodies. Probably 5000 bills ago....but go ahead and blame the Dems for the national debt. Incredible.

jmog;409560 wrote:Um...to clarify, Obama has spent nearly as much in 1.5 years as Bush did in 8. So yeah, technically bush spent more, but not on a yearly or even percentage of GDP basis.

You don't have a clue do you? If your going to post crap, then source it. When I post facts, I source it.

jmog;409568 wrote:Actually since Congress controls the budget and the President can only submit a budget but the Congress then does whatever it wants with it.

Take a civics class if you don't believe that.

And as usual, you haven't done even the slightest bit of research on the subject before you post. Use your damn google button.

For the last 30 years or so, the budget submitted by the sitting president has been within plus/minus 5% of the actual budget realized. EVERY YEAR!!!

Reagan. and the 2 Bushes ruined any and all arguments that GOP are fiscally more responsible than Democrats.

Your argument is a joke....and you know it.

Footwedge;409590 wrote:Why don't you look up the last time a vetoed bill was overriden by the 2 legislative bodies. Probably 5000 bills ago....but go ahead and blame the Dems for the national debt. Incredible.

NOT THE POINT.

We've been arguing who controls the budget in this country and it's Congress. Always has been, always will be unless the Constitution changes. Doesn't matter if the president agrees, disagrees or does a Mexican hat dance in Arizona. The budget is Congress' responsibility and always has been.

If you're going to look back at who is to blame for the most deficit spending in this country throughout its history, the Democrats win going away -- for no other reason than they've controlled Congress most of the time.

You make the decisions -- you get the credit -- or blame.

Writerbuckeye;409344 wrote:Yeah, yeah, I know. But I get sick of Democrats always pointing back to the few years the Republicans had Congress and exclaim: Why didn't you do such and such when you had control?

While that may be a good question, it ignores the FACT that Congress has been controlled by Democrats almost 3/4 of the time in our nation's history. The greatest expansions of government have happened because those Congress' approved the growth. A president may have wanted it, but Congress has the final say.

It's textbook civics, but apparently a few of the posters on here missed class that day.

So I will ask you....one last time.....when was the last time the legislative body overrided a budget issue vetoed by the president? 50 years? 100 years? You and jmog are digging your hole deeper and deeper. Answer the question.

Over the history of the United States, only 4% of bills vetoed have been overridden........


"A presidential veto is the rejection of a bill passed by the majority votes of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. While Congress can vote to override a presidential veto, causing the bill to become law without the president's approval, this is rarely done".


http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/presveto.htm

Yeah...the president isn't responsible for spending....too funny.

Writerbuckeye;409600 wrote:NOT THE POINT.

We've been arguing who controls the budget in this country and it's Congress. Always has been, always will be unless the Constitution changes. Doesn't matter if the president agrees, disagrees or does a Mexican hat dance in Arizona. The budget is Congress' responsibility and always has been.

That is a strawman argument that is patently false. The president submits HIS BUDGET..and the Congress alters it plus or minus 5% points since forever. Tht's what happens and that is how it's done. PERIOD. Moreover, any president can whack any supefluous spending with the stroke of his pen. Cite for me one stinking lousy example, whereby in our lifetime, a Congress has overridden a damn veto because a president wanted to control spending. It doesn't happen, PERIOD.

Even Reagan publicly stated POST OFFICE that his biggest regret in his presidency, was HIS OWN HYPERSPENDING.

If you're going to look back at who is to blame for the most deficit spending in this country throughout its history, the Democrats win going away -- for no other reason than they've controlled Congress most of the time.

You make the decisions -- you get the credit -- or blame.

Denial is a river in the Middle East.

And from the ultra conservative, laissez faire, Mises Institute on Reagan's unbridled spending......

"Spending

In 1980, Jimmy Caner's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income" (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."

Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan's 3%—in the government's take of "national income." And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.

The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. And this doesn't count the recently signed $4 billion "drought-relief" measure. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987.

Foreign aid has also risen, from $10 billion to $22 billion. Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend. He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. "contribution" to the International Monetary Fund.

His budget cuts were actually cuts in projected spending, not absolute cuts in current spending levels. As Reagan put it, "We're not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have."


http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488

Ask Conservative Governor Chris Christie who controls the purse strings. He vetoes every spending bill in sight. He is committed to keeping a lid on spending.

The 2012 nominee of the Republican Party should vow to do the same if elected. Veto any and everything in sight that adds to the deficit, and make Congress muster 67 Senators to overturn it. That will happen about the same time BHO is honored by the Heritage Foundation for fiscal discipline.

Democrats never had 67 Senators during the Reagan or Bush 1 & II administrations. That means for all intents and purposes they controlled the budget process, because they could tell Congress anything over X dollar amount will be vetoed day after day until they found 67 votes that didn't exist.

In the absence of votes to overturn the VETO, Congress is left with no choice but to give the president what he wants on the budget or the government shuts down.

Dick Cheney's governing philosophy was that Ronald Reagan proved deficits don't matter, so don't worry about spending. Neither side has clean hands in the debate, and neither do anything to try and stop the spending.

And....to those that clamor about Obama spending more in 1.5 years than Bush did his entire presidency........where do you get such utter nonsense? Really...is this coming from the EIB network?

Fact. The final budget for spending from Bush (which encompassed a fiscal year ending on September 30th, 2009), was 3.1 trillion dollars. Which...was a slight of hand in that his budget did not include the costs for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq....which brought his actual budget figure to 3.25 trillion. Obama's first budget was for 3.6 trillion. Unlike Bush, Obama's budget included the war costs. About a 10% increase. As compared to W's budget's, this 10% pretty much mirrored the annual increase over W's 8 years.

Again.....every president since I've been around has implemented Keynesian policies when faced with high unemployment. It's what they do. And it doesn't matter if they were D's or R's. I can pretty much guarantee anyone here....had McCain been elected, the budget he would have proposed would have matched Obama's dollar for dollar. History always has a habit of repeating itself.

The misinformation that the far right winged blogs and news outlets spews regarding fiscal irresponsibility is really pathetic.

IggyPride00;409629 wrote:
In the absence of votes to overturn the VETO, Congress is left with no choice but to give the president what he wants on the budget or the government shuts down.

Ding..ding..ding....we have a winner. I will concede that not all issues are voted on completely by party line. But never...in my lifetime...has a president vetoed a bill for spending too much...only to see the legislative branch override it....And that goes for either party.

Con_Alma;409248 wrote:There has never been a President, be he Republican or Democrat, that has approved the expenditure of either this amount or this amount above governmental receipts within the respective amount of time that the current President has.

Footwedge;409259 wrote:Not dollar wise.....

So we agree or are we simply saying the same thing with different words?

Footwedge;409643 wrote:And....to those that clamor about Obama spending more in 1.5 years than Bush did his entire presidency........where do you get such utter nonsense? ...

I believe what people are referring to are the costs that have been legislated into action in the future due to the President's Healthcare bill. I am not certain but that may be what they are throwing in there.

The WaPo is hardly a conservative rag, but even it knows basic economics:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/03/21/GR2009032100104.html

We've entered into a new realm of fiscal incompetence and irresponsibility.