The lesser of two evils, by Bill Whittle...

[billc]

Bill Whittle explains about voting for the lesser of two evils...

http://pjmedia.com/blog/election-hot-seat-with-bill-whittle/

All I have to say to Bill Whittle...Amen Brother. He speaks the truth, if people will only listen...

 

[Sukerkin]

I saw this in the comments below the link:

No President of the United States can create either a budget deficit or a budget surplus. All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives and all taxes are voted into law by Congress. This means Bill Clinton did not balance the budget, the Republicans did.
Democrats controlled both houses of Congress before Barack Obama became president. The deficit he inherited was created by the Congressional Democrats, including Senator Barack Obama, who did absolutely nothing to oppose the runaway spending. He was one of the biggest of the big spenders.

I am wondering how true this is? Is it rose-coloured-glasses spin from a dyed-in-the-wool, my-party-right-or-wrong, Republican voter? Or is it political reality?

 

[elder999]

. The deficit he inherited was created by the Congressional Democrats, including Senator Barack Obama, who did absolutely nothing to oppose the runaway spending.

It's partly spin, and partly true.

Some dyed-in the wool ideologues insist that there was no "Clinton surplus," or balanced budget at all-that it was all smoke and mirrors.

For the real roots of our fiscal state, though, have a look here- funny how that number matches our budget deficit for the last four years.

 

[Sukerkin]

That is an interesting monetary insight indeed - time was there was money to be made in wars for a country, that's why Europe had so many in the centuries before the 20th. Seems there is only debt to be found in mass-murder for other than a few these days.

 

[billc]

Another libertarian argues for voting for Mitt Romney, even though they like Gary Johnson better...

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/10/27/Libertarian-Parodies-My-First-Time-Ad

 

[jks9199]

I saw this in the comments below the link:

No President of the United States can create either a budget deficit or a budget surplus. All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives and all taxes are voted into law by Congress. This means Bill Clinton did not balance the budget, the Republicans did.
Democrats controlled both houses of Congress before Barack Obama became president. The deficit he inherited was created by the Congressional Democrats, including Senator Barack Obama, who did absolutely nothing to oppose the runaway spending. He was one of the biggest of the big spenders.

I am wondering how true this is? Is it rose-coloured-glasses spin from a dyed-in-the-wool, my-party-right-or-wrong, Republican voter? Or is it political reality?

Essentially, the President proposes a budget to Congress. Meanwhile, Congress is creating their own. In theory, they meet somewhere in the middle, and the President signs off on what gets passed, or the government "runs out of money." Here's one more-or-less neutral explanation...

Of course, when the process breaks down in partisan bickering and Congress Members more worried about the next election than doing their job... well, we run on continuing resolutions for years...

 

[billc]

Keep in mind the Republican controlled house has submitted budgets each of the 4 years obama has been in office. The senate, controlled by the democrats, hasn't submitted a budget in the last 3 years. The last two budgets submitted by obama were rejected...by the democrat controlled senate, the last budget he submitted went down to defeat, in the democrat controlled senate 99-0. So, the republicans in the senate didn't stop the budget process, and they didn't stop obama's budget proposal, democrats did.

From the Hill,

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/163345-obama-budget-receives-zero-votes-in-senate-

[FONT=Georgia !important] No senators voted for President Obama's 2012 budget when it came up for a vote in the Senate Wednesday. A procedural vote to move forward on the president's plan failed 0-97. Just minutes earlier, the Senate failed to advance Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) budget plan by a vote of 40-57 as five Republicans voted against their party. Democrats sought to put Republicans on the defensive over the Ryan budget, which they have described as extreme. But Republicans, who demanded a vote on Obama's plan, sought to flip the script after the later vote. "The Senate just voted unanimously against proceeding to the president’s budget. That’s right, unanimous opposition to the president’s budget that spends too much, taxes too much and borrows too much," said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) "Not a single Democrat voted for it. We’d vote on the Democrats’ budget, too ... but they d on’t have one." [/FONT]

And here is the 2011 budget proposal from obama that the democrat controlled senate also voted down...

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/163347-senate-votes-unanimously-against-obama-budget

[FONT=Georgia !important]The Senate voted unanimously on Wednesday to reject a $3.7 trillion budget plan that President Obama sent to Capitol Hill in February. Ninety-seven senators voted against a motion to take it up. Democratic aides said ahead of the vote that the Democratic caucus would not support the plan because it has been supplanted by the deficit-reduction plan Obama outlined at a speech at George Washington University in April. [/FONT]

They also voted against the Republican budget...

[FONT=Georgia !important]The White House Office of Management and Budget declined to comment on the president's budget receiving zero votes in the Senate. The Senate also rejected the House-passed budget sponsored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), which failed on a 40-57 vote. [/FONT]

It has been 1250 days since the Senate of the United States, controlled by the democrats, has submitted a budet...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...ew-debt-senate-dems-passed-budget_649673.html

Tomorrow will mark a milestone: It will be 1,200 days since Senate Democrats passed a budget, during which time Congress amassed $4.8 trillion in new debt.

That was August 11, so add all the days since to get to 1250 days without a budget.


Sooo...complain all you want about congress, but the Republicans have submitted budgets every year they have been in control of the House, while the democrats refuse to produce one and vote against the ones obama submits. It takes both parties submitting budgets to get one finished...one side hasn't done it's constitutional duty in over 3 years...and it isn't the Republicans...

 

[jks9199]

No -- it's both sides. Their job, regarding the budget, is to find a way to meet in the middle. Not to play a bunch of "if I can't have it my way, I won't have it your way, either" games.

Both parties are guilty of partisan wrangling and ******** that's prevented having an actual budget pass. Members of both parties have failed to do their job.

Personally -- I think that the salaries of Congress members should be held hostage to actually producing a budget. If they don't do their job, and produce a budget on time -- they don't get paid. And their pay stops BEFORE any government shut down that means that government workers don't get paid happens.

 

[billc]

Well, the Republicans have done their part in passing a budget. It is up to the democrats in the Senate to come up with their budget and then they can do the "compromise," thing. If the democrats refuse to pass a budget, then there is no starting point for negotiating. Each side has to say what they want and then they start to haggle. The democrats don't want to have a record of what they actually want, much like obama didn't want a record that he could be held to when he was here in Illinois. It is much easier to run for re-election when you don't have a record that can be looked at by the other side.

 

[jks9199]

When neither side will give an inch -- there is no room for compromise. And both sides are equally to blame at that point.

Let's simplify things for a minute. You and I are going to cook dinner for the rest of the folks here. We must both work on each dish. I refuse to cook, touch, or handle meat of any sort. You insist that every dish must have bacon in it. As long as neither of us will budge on that -- we're not cooking a thing, are we? Who's fault is it that everyone else goes hungry? Yours? Mine? We're both presenting recipes. We're both ready to work -- but only within our own rules. And neither of us will budge...

The Congress have abrogated their responsibilities. Call your Congress critter on the carpet about it. But quit trying to play that one side is less at fault than the other. They're all playing the same damn game.

 

[billc]

Actually, a more accurate description is this...

We are going to make a dinner, I list all the ingredients I want to use (republicans), you refuse to even say what ingredients you want (democrats ), and then blame me for not cooperating, and when the other guy gives us his list, we both disagree with everything on it. That is a more accurate portrayal of the situation.

 

[Steve]

Or, how about this, it's not about dinner. It's not about the ingredients. It's about two competing restaurants unwilling to share the profits. And fans of one restaurant would never dream of eating in the other, even though the menus are almost identical.

Or, some would say that it's two competing restaurant chains owned by the same parent corporation fostering a carefully cultivated appearance of genuine vitriol, when the reality is that the food IS identical.