http://townhall.com/tipshee...ses_2013_ryan_budget

quote The US House of Representatives has passed Rep. Paul Ryan's FY 2013 budget, largely along party lines. The final vote was 228-191, with the vast majority of Republicans voting for passage, with every Democrat and a small handful of Republicans voting no (some of whom supported a more ambitious proposal). The House has thus fulfilled its legal obligation under the 1974 Budget Act, and has done so on time. For a picture of what this blueprint would do if implemented, read my comprehensive summary. Some highlights: (1) It reduces spending and eventually balances, unlike any Democrat alternatives, such as they even exist. (2) It restores spending and revenue levels to their historical norms of roughly 20 and 18 percent, respectively, by 2015. (3) It reduces deficits by $3 Trillion compared to President Obama's over the next decade, and begins to control our growing national debt. (4) It lowers, flattens, and simplifies personal and corporate income taxes while limiting and eliminating spending in the tax code. (5) It uses a bipartisan framework to reform and save a crashing Medicare program for future seniors. (6) It repeals Obamacare in its entirety. Last night, the House unanimously defeated President Obama's reckless budget by a vote of 414-0. The chamber also defeated three other budget alternatives (see the updates for details). For the third consecutive year, the Democrat-controlled Senate will violate the law by not offering any budget resolution. Last year, Harry Reid & Co did manage to vote on and kill four Republican budget proposals -- and the GOP forced a vote on the president's 2012 budget. Not a single Democrat "yes" vote was recorded on any of the proposed resolutions. Obama's plan went down in flames, 0-97. We'll likely see a re-run of that show later this year. 503 to 0. For those keeping score at home, that is the most recent count of “yes” votes received by the competing budget proposals offered by Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) and President Obama, in that order, over the past two years. Stiles awards Senate Democrats a "did not participate."

I heard that in the news last night. It is a good gesture but as is, this budgets won't get through the Democrat controlled Senate nor will the President sign it.

It will either be killed outright or a lot of the spending will be put back in it.

And it will NEVER be brought up for a vote in Harry Reid's Senate.
Harry Reid is why there hasn't been a budget in 3 years. The last two that made it to the Senate for a vote were shot down. Obama's last budget received -0- votes in the Senate. None. Zilch. Nada. Not even a single Democrat voted for it.

The United States Federal Government will not have an annual budget passed during the entire Obama presidency. It's been nothing but spending bills and continuing resolutions - effectively running the government from one payday loan to the next. At least he doesn't have to go to the Post Office to get money orders to put the light bill on his Bank of China credit card.

And yet the Democrats will again claim that the Republicans are the reason we have no budget and the Kool Aid drinkers will lap it all up.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: And yet the Democrats will again claim that the Republicans are the reason we have no budget and the Kool Aid drinkers will lap it all up.

You know that it's not about who is drinking the Kool-Aid, but what color they drink...

I don't think that the people who are on one side of the aisle are any smarter than the people on the other side. Can someone explain to me why we can't come to an agreement? Is it because we are being led in different directions by politicians. I know people on both sides and neither side is composed of stupid evil people. Both sides have some and both sides have smart nice people. Why are we so different?

quote Originally posted by dratts: I don't think that the people who are on one side of the aisle are any smarter than the people on the other side. Can someone explain to me why we can't come to an agreement? Is it because we are being led in different directions by politicians. I know people on both sides and neither side is composed of stupid evil people. Both sides have some and both sides have smart nice people. Why are we so different?

Well this one will not pass mainly because of #4 and #6

quote (1) It reduces spending and eventually balances, unlike any Democrat alternatives, such as they even exist. (2) It restores spending and revenue levels to their historical norms of roughly 20 and 18 percent, respectively, by 2015. (3) It reduces deficits by $3 Trillion compared to President Obama's over the next decade, and begins to control our growing national debt. (4) It lowers, flattens, and simplifies personal and corporate income taxes while limiting and eliminating spending in the tax code. (5) It uses a bipartisan framework to reform and save a crashing Medicare program for future seniors. (6) It repeals Obamacare in its entirety.

I think the problem is greed on both sides, Lets look at it like a household budget to simplify it.

The husband proposes a budget where they spend less and puts into it that he can sleep with any woman he wants to whenever he wants to, and cuts the wife's shoe budget to zero.
Then he complains when his wife tells him that's not going to happen.

Then the wife proposes a budget where she cuts spending on all of the things the Husband works for (no Beer, no Car, no TV etc.) and increases her "going out money".
The husband promptly declines this budget, and they fight about it for awhile.

Meanwhile the electric, water, and garbage bills are getting paid via Credit card, and everyone in the house is spending every dime they get with no real concern for the future because that's not their problem.

Brad

"The House has thus fulfilled its legal obligation under the 1974 Budget Act, and has done so on time."

I don't think they intended for it to be acceptable to the senate. Of course in today's congress is anything?

quote Originally posted by TK: "The House has thus fulfilled its legal obligation under the 1974 Budget Act, and has done so on time." I don't think they intended for it to be acceptable to the senate. Of course in today's congress is anything?

Isn't it great how those laws can sound so menacing, but in the end they just wrote some meaningless words on a piece of paper and it's all legal.

Brad

quote Originally posted by dratts: I don't think that the people who are on one side of the aisle are any smarter than the people on the other side. Can someone explain to me why we can't come to an agreement? Is it because we are being led in different directions by politicians. I know people on both sides and neither side is composed of stupid evil people. Both sides have some and both sides have smart nice people. Why are we so different?

We They (politicians in DC) can't come to an aggrement because they can't agree... They can't even agree to disagree... It's all words and numbers, no enthusiasm beyond getting paid. I've got my next 5 paychecks that 50% of them don't even care about the legislation, they just want to look busy and get paid, 45% just want more power, and the other 5% MIGHT care about the country, but the 45% control the media, so the 5% can't do anything to actually help the country. I'm not dividing them up by party or race, this is ALL of them. Period.

Warren Buffett in Recent interview with CNBC, offered one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling "I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for reelection.

I like how he thinks.

quote Originally posted by dratts: I don't think that the people who are on one side of the aisle are any smarter than the people on the other side. Can someone explain to me why we can't come to an agreement? Is it because we are being led in different directions by politicians. I know people on both sides and neither side is composed of stupid evil people. Both sides have some and both sides have smart nice people. Why are we so different?

I think it's too big to deal with. They can't even be remotely be sure that their decision to cut spending won't cause a major rip in the time-space continuum. It's easier to hope someone else knows and follow them. Many of the proposals tossed out there are written to AVOID being acceptable so there is little risk it will pass and they don't have to worried about the impact. But hey, they put something out there right? I think they are truly scared.

It will take someone that is willing to be beat to a pulp guaranteed to to get anything moving. No one wants to enter politics for the sole purpose of getting their picture next to Richard Nixon (or worse.) Even if they enter politics thinking they can drive change they soon learn no one has a handle on all of it. Oh crap. Really??!!! I don't want this job! Survive! Survive! Good money though, that's cool.

It might take the public to tell them "It's ok if you screw up as long as you are working towards a goal." Like that's going to work on either end.

I would start at a 5% cut across the board everywhere. Wait a year and watch the impact. We survived? Another 5% + program consolidations. Wait another year and repeat. Within a couple of years you will have a good picture of what is falling apart and what didn't flinch. You have to force it to near failure.

[This message has been edited by TK (edited 03-30-2012).]

Really good way of putting it. Way better than I did.

quote Originally posted by twofatguys: I think the problem is greed on both sides, Lets look at it like a household budget to simplify it. The husband proposes a budget where they spend less and puts into it that he can sleep with any woman he wants to whenever he wants to, and cuts the wife's shoe budget to zero. Then he complains when his wife tells him that's not going to happen. Then the wife proposes a budget where she cuts spending on all of the things the Husband works for (no Beer, no Car, no TV etc.) and increases her "going out money". The husband promptly declines this budget, and they fight about it for awhile. Meanwhile the electric, water, and garbage bills are getting paid via Credit card, and everyone in the house is spending every dime they get with no real concern for the future because that's not their problem. Brad

As expected, Obama blasts GOP budget as ‘Social Darwinism’
http://zionica.com/2012/04/...as-social-darwinism/

quote President Barack Obama accused the House Republicans of being dishonest in the passage of their budget plan last week. He argued that the budget is not really about deficit reduction, as Republicans argue, but an attempt to “impose a radical vision” that is “antithetical to our entire history.” The House Republican budget, also known as “Path to Prosperity” or the “Ryan Budget” after Budget Chair Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), “is a Trojan horse,” Obama said Tuesday in a speech at The Associated Press annual meeting. “Disguised as deficit reduction plans, it is really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country. It is thinly veiled social Darwinism. It is antithetical to our entire history as a land of opportunity and upward mobility for everybody who is willing to work for it.” Obama contrasted the Ryan budget with his own budget and the Bowles-Simpson Commission’s proposals. The Bowles-Simpson Commission, formed by President Obama, released its report in December 2010. Obama did not embrace the report at the time, but praised its work in Tuesday’s speech.