Al Franken...is this for real?

Originally Posted by classicman

How long did they have to read the 11,000 page bill earlier this year? How long should they have? How long would it really take an average person to read and comprehend all that? What was the rush to get it done "that week" again?

In fact, the president is required by law to submit a budget proposal in Feb of every year and Congress is supposed to adopt a budget resolution by the end of April.

The size of the bill is nothing new nor is the fact that members of Congress dont read bills..that is why they have staff.

That is what was done this year.

But it doesnt mean that a budget was adopted...the budget proposal is simply a blueprint....it doesnt even go back to the president for signature..again by law.

The next step are 13 separate appropriation bills which make up the budget, again, where Republicans will have opportunities to offer amendments on each of those bills.

[classicman]

I was referring to the stimulus bill.

But thanks for the procedural info. I didn't realize that the budget didn't go back to the Pres. after approval.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

The next step are 13 separate appropriation bills which make up the budget, again, where Republicans will have opportunities to offer amendments on each of those bills.

Omnibus Appropriations bill (H.R. 1105)

Despite some initial concern last week among Democratic leaders, they successfully maneuvered around some tricky Republican amendments and kept the bill from being modified.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said that she would not make her members vote on the package again if the Senate changed it. That would have meant an extension of an existing continuing resolution. That will not be necessary and the bill will now be sent to the President, who will sign it.

Update (3/11): President Obama has signed this bill into law.

http://senatus.wordpress.com/2009/03...riations-bill/

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Omnibus Appropriations bill (H.R. 1105)



http://senatus.wordpress.com/2009/03...riations-bill/

Right....Obama signed the 09 omnibus bill....which was Bush's last budget....and the Republicans didnt get everything they want..it is not an issue of transparency...they are the minority!

The 2010 budget resolution that he sent to Congress in Feb does not come back to him for signature....that is the law.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Right....Obama signed the 09 omnibus bill....which was Bush's last budget....and the Republicans didnt get everything they want..it is not an issue of transparency...they are the minority!

You crack me up. What an apologist! Now it is because they are the majority. Which is it?

"Hey, fuck you, we are in charge."

You are a partisan hack for the demoncrats.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You crack me up. What an apologist! Now it is because they are the majority. Which is it?

"Hey, fuck you, we are in charge."

You are a partisan hack for the demoncrats.

Please cite the specific sections of the current House and/or Senate rules that you think allow for a lack transparency....or that provide fewer privileges for the minority than the previous rules that the Republicans implemented that limited the prvilieges of the Democrats.

Not what you read in Malkin or quote from some Repub in Congress....cite the section of the rules. Hell, not one Republican member of Congress could..maybe you can do better.

I cite facts about the budget process, the ethics/earmark/lobbying reform law and you retort with bullshit.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Please cite the specific sections of the current House and/or Senate rules that you think allow for a lack transparency....or that provide fewer privileges for the minority than the previous rules that the Republicans implemented that limited the prvilieges of the Democrats.

Your continual return to this subject is a total smoke screen.

I have repeatedly pointed out that there was a lack of transprency due to the way the bills were presented for review, on short notice. You can have all the rules you want and pass all the laws you want saying that you are not going to do business as usual. Pelosi has continually lied to the American public about how she was going to conduct business as the Majority Leader. She has failed. You have failed to convince me. Your opinion, which you hold up to be "facts", are not so factual when I have shown how business has been actually conducted. I suggest we move on from this disagreement.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I cite facts about the budget process, the ethics/earmark/lobbying reform law and you retort with bullshit.

And I cite facts about how they actually have done business since taking charge of Congress in 2006, and they have done nothing but talk out of both sides of their mouth as they hide what is going on until the last minute, and spew bullshit through their apologists.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Omnibus Appropriations bill (H.R. 1105)



http://senatus.wordpress.com/2009/03...riations-bill/

Your implication that because the Republcans dont get everything they want or dont want in the budgtet..and bitch and moan...that somehow there is a lack of transparency.

Bullshit.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Your implication that because the Republcans dont get everything they want or dont want in the budgtet..and bitch and moan...that somehow there is a lack of transparency.

Bullshit.

No, as I have posted they did not provide transparency by not releasing the details of the budget through a very short suspence. Stop being such an apologist. It was all over the news.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No, as I have posted they did not provide transparency by not releasing the details of the budget through a very short suspence. Stop being such an apologist. It was all over the news.

From what I remember hearing, if the budget wasn't passed the government would have shut down, like it did when Clinton was in office, and that is why it had to go through quickly. Does anyone know if that is true? Redux?

Originally Posted by sugarpop

From what I remember hearing, if the budget wasn't passed the government would have shut down, like it did when Clinton was in office, and that is why it had to go through quickly. Does anyone know if that is true? Redux?

sugar...if the appropriation bills are not adopted by Sept 30 each year, all or part of the federal government would shut down the next day.

It backfired on Gingrich and the Republicans when they went that route rather than face a Clinton veto on several of the bills.