We can only hope these campaign ads appear on TV

[BedKnobbery2]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
Yes, President Bush single-handedly drafted, sponsored, debated, voted on and passed every single appropriations bill since he was elected President. None of the 100 Senators (both Democrats and Republicans) and none of the 435 Congressmen and women (both Democrats and Republicans) had anything to do with drafting, sponsoring, debated, voting on or passing any of this legislation.

So, yes, I believe that President Bush single-handedly created this "huge" deficit. All alone. No help. Nana. It's all his fault.

Just like I believe the Easter Bunny lays eggs, the Tooth Fairy will leave me money when my teeth fall out, that there's a pot of gold at the end of every rainbow and Santa Claus eats the cookies I leave on the table every Christmas Eve.

Okay, so let me make sure I have this straight. Neither President Bush, nor any other president of our country (unless, of course, they happen to have been a Democrat), bears any responsibility for what happens while they are in office? Hmm...I'm certainly sure that's what this administration would *love* for everyone to believe.

 

[BedKnobbery2]

Originally posted by tonyswife

11. You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars.
[/B]

Wow, I must be a Republican!! I definitely believe the current war was started by corrupt politicians, and not the military. I had no idea Republicans felt that way! Cool!

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by BedKnobbery2
Okay, so let me make sure I have this straight. Neither President Bush, nor any other president of our country (unless, of course, they happen to have been a Democrat), bears any responsibility for what happens while they are in office? Hmm...I'm certainly sure that's what this administration would *love* for everyone to believe.

*SIGH* In your posts you've implied that President Bush is "responsible" for the alleged huge deficits. I simply took your position to the logical conclusion -- that he ALONE did all the work and that Congress obviously had nothing to do with it.

Since you missed my point, let me try again. According to the U.S. Constitution (unless it's been amended recently), the sole authority for spending lies with the Congress; indeed the House is responsible for initiating appropriations legislation. The president's role is to either sign or veto the bills as presented to him.

While it is a nice fantasy to believe that the president ALONE is responsible for the country's economic situation, that is all it is -- a fantasy. There are many more factors involved than this simplistic illusion can accommodate.

But if it helps you sleep at night, then go for it. I believe most people are able to distinguish between fantasy and reality with regard to whose responsible for the deficit. (BTW, that's not to say the Executive Branch has no responsibility ... but the ball starts rolling in the LEGISLATIVE branch.)

 

[BedKnobbery2]

Believe me, I am perfectly clear on how our government works, and I am also aware that Bush has found himself in the enviable position of having an unbalanced, partisan government in his favor. I was simply pointing out *your* implication that Bush bears as much responsibility for the massive (and factual, by the way, not "alleged") deficit as does Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy is, to be honest, ridiculous.

However, if it helps *you* sleep better at night believing that our President bears no responsiblity for his actions, and the actions of the government under his watch, by all means, believe what you will.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
According to the U.S. Constitution (unless it's been amended recently), the sole authority for spending lies with the Congress; indeed the House is responsible for initiating appropriations legislation.

Please. Talk about fantasy. You mean the House writes the budget and submits it to Congress now? The president isn't in charge of drawing up a budget and submitting it to Congress?

Wow. That was an amendment.

Since w has taken office no one can deny that budget deficits have soared out of control. Talk to your fellow republicans. Even many of them are uneasy with w's reckless spending.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by BedKnobbery2
Believe me, I am perfectly clear on how our government works, and I am also aware that Bush has found himself in the enviable position of having an unbalanced, partisan government in his favor. I was simply pointing out *your* implication that Bush bears as much responsibility for the massive (and factual, by the way, not "alleged") deficit as does Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy is, to be honest, ridiculous.

However, if it helps *you* sleep better at night believing that our President bears no responsiblity for his actions, and the actions of the government under his watch, by all means, believe what you will.

Same song, second verse, let's try it again, 'cause it can't get any worse.

My point is that both the Legislative and Executive branches of gov't. share responsibility (although not equally) for creating the deficit. The implication that the President is SOLELY responsible for this is absurd at best.

I never said that the Executive Branch had no responsibility. But since all spending must start in Congress and since all bills require a majority vote to pass, it requires the efforts of both parties to approve spending, AS WELL AS the signature of POTUS.

The responsibility for any surplus, balance or deficit is shared by both the Congress and the President.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
But since all spending must start in Congress...

Um, they don't.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Please. Talk about fantasy. You mean the House writes the budget and submits it to Congress now? The president isn't in charge of drawing up a budget and submitting it to Congress?

Check your facts ... a budget does not authorize the spending of any federal funds; it is a guideline and an estimate of what the gov't. will spend for the coming fiscal year. Approval of the budget is like the approval of a roadmap -- you know where you're going, but you've still got to get there. It's the appropriations bills created in Congress that authorize the spending of the money.

Since w has taken office no one can deny that budget deficits have soared out of control. Talk to your fellow republicans. Even many of them are uneasy with w's reckless spending.

I am not and have not denied that there is a budget deficit. I simply would not categorize it as "huge." We've had budget deficits before and as Mr. Reagan said once, "They are big enough to take care of themselves." That philosophy works for me.

 

[faithinkarma]

And should the economy take a quick turn, you will be the first up to the plate to say that the president should not be taking the credit?

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Um, they don't.

U.S. Constitution -- read Article 1, Section 7, Section 8 and Section 9, Clause 1.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
And should the economy take a quick turn, you will be the first up to the plate to say that the president should not be taking the credit?

The economy has been improving for quite some time and continues to do so. I believe this is the result of actions of BOTH the Legislative and Executive branches, such as passing the tax cuts/relief bills. Both share the blame; both share any praise.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
Check your facts ... a budget does not authorize the spending of any federal funds; it is a guideline and an estimate of what the gov't. will spend for the coming fiscal year. Approval of the budget is like the approval of a roadmap -- you know where you're going, but you've still got to get there. It's the appropriations bills created in Congress that authorize the spending of the money. I am not and have not denied that there is a budget deficit. I simply would not categorize it as "huge." We've had budget deficits before and as Mr. Reagan said once, "They are big enough to take care of themselves." That philosophy works for me.

Yes, I agree. The budget is a guideline for spending submitted by the president. This guideline is often adhered to throughout the following fiscal year.

The whole argument that "w is not to blame" is nothing more than a weak attempt to shift the blame for yet another of his problems. (Isn't it interesting how often this seems to be happening with this administration.)

If w had not submitted budgets that would result in the huge deficits that have come about, Congress would not have passed them. Under the argument being presented, Congress should babysit the president to make sure he doesn't spend too much? While that may be a great thing for this president, as he seems to have a total lack of control in the area, perhaps it would be better if the president submitted budgets that were more realistic.

As I've said, even many prominent republicans are more than a little bit disturbed with w's spending habits.

 

[faithinkarma]

I am not disputing who gets the blame or the credit, but rather, who claims it. For months we heard all about how the president's tax cuts etc had been so good for the country. It was given as a reason to vote for him. The president has used the economy in his political ads. Now all of a sudden the message seems to have shifted to a president is not responsible for changes in the economy. Neither side can have it both ways.

Same thng goes for the media. One cannot keep claiming anything said against the president is because of liberal bias, and then when the press does something republicans approve of, claim the press has suddenly found a lonely scruple.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Yes, I agree. The budget is a guideline for spending submitted by the president. This guideline is often adhered to throughout the following fiscal year.

Whether or not it is adhered to (and I doubt that any administration has adhered to any budget), the budget does not authorize any spending. Congress must still draft and pass specific bills authorizing money for specific programs.

The whole argument that "w is not to blame" is nothing more than a weak attempt to shift the blame for yet another of his problems. (Isn't it interesting how often this seems to be happening with this administration.)

Did I say this or use the argument that President Bush is not to blame for the deficit?

If w had not submitted budgets that would result in the huge deficits that have come about, Congress would not have passed them. Under the argument being presented, Congress should babysit the president to make sure he doesn't spend too much? While that may be a great thing for this president, as he seems to have a total lack of control in the area, perhaps it would be better if the president submitted budgets that were more realistic.

Congress is under no obligation to follow the budget submitted by the WH. They do not have to approve spending bills that result in the gov't. spending more than it is receiving in revenue. Congress is a completely separate branch of government and has the authority and responsibility to manage the appropriation of money to various programs. Seems to me that they could easily "just say no" to spending.

As I've said, even many prominent republicans are more than a little bit disturbed with w's spending habits.

Once again, President Bush cannot spend 1 cent without the approval of Congress. So talking about his "spending habits" is a misstatement.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
I am not disputing who gets the blame or the credit, but rather, who claims it. For months we heard all about how the president's tax cuts etc had been so good for the country. It was given as a reason to vote for him. The president has used the economy in his political ads. Now all of a sudden the message seems to have shifted to a president is not responsible for changes in the economy. Neither side can have it both ways.

I cannot account for the inconsistencies of the media or the political parties. Through the years both parties have been very quick to lay blame on the other for economic problems and claim praise for economic success. Alas, that's part of the political game. I believe that the vast majority of people can see through the gamesmanship to realize the truth -- everyone shares the blame and everyone shares the successes.

On the other hand, I also believe that people tend to perceive that the Executive Branch has a lot more power to control the economy than it really does.

Same thng goes for the media. One cannot keep claiming anything said against the president is because of liberal bias, and then when the press does something republicans approve of, claim the press has suddenly found a lonely scruple.

I brought up the idea that CBS found a lonely scruple as a possible explanation for another poster's question on how to explain why they refused to run the Moveon.org commericals during the Super Bowl. I was speaking tongue-in-cheek; sorry you missed that.

I think the truth is more likely that the network found someone who was willing to pony-up more bucks for that valuable airtime than Moveon.org was. Most likely, the highest bidder won the airtime and Moveon.org decided to "spin" this in their favor. Again, it's all part of the great political game we play.

 

[faithinkarma]

I cannot account for the inconsistencies of the media or the political parties. Through the years both parties have been very quick to lay blame on the other for economic problems and claim praise for economic success. Alas, that's part of the political game. I believe that the vast majority of people can see through the gamesmanship to realize the truth -- everyone shares the blame and everyone shares the successes.

Now that is something with which I agree. Both sides take things to extremes. Both sides pick and choose which news stories they will accept according to their own political bias. Both sides put their own spin on everything. That is what distrurbs me the most. It is never about substance any more. It is all about spin. Being right has become more important than doing the right thing. And that goes right up to the top of either party.

 

[Eeyore1954]

FIK, ITA, however, "spin" has been around as long as politics and journalism. We tend to notice it more today because of the expansive nature of media: print, radio, TV, cable, Internet, etc. With everyone having an agenda of some kind or another, it's inevitable that what happens in our world today will be "spun" to some degree based on the current agenda of the person/group presenting the information.

I believe that the increasing level of partisanship today is adding a lethal poison to the "spin." My hope is that the country might rediscover how to practice politics with civility; to discover that you can be friends with someone on the opposite side of the fence from you.

I loved the story told about Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan, who would often discuss policies and issues rather heatedly in the Oval Office for hours. However, Mr. Reagan once looked at his watch and told Mr. O'Neill, "Tip, it's past 6 o'clock. It's time to start telling old Irish stories." And so politics was put into the desk drawer for the day and the two men would regale each other with their old Irish tales.

If they could do it, maybe it's still possible today.