Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why the hell didn't Pelosi/Reid pass a budget when they had the chance?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 12:34 AM
Original message
Why the hell didn't Pelosi/Reid pass a budget when they had the chance?
If we had passed a budget when we controlled both houses, President Obama would have signed it and we wouldn't be staring at the specter of massive cuts by the rethugs.

I am so disappointed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Mz Pip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 12:36 AM
Response to Original message
1. Blue Dogs
like Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln plus a few others.

Yeah, it's disappointing. A lot could have been done that's for sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 12:41 AM
Response to Original message
2. Randi Rhodes thinks it was strategy -- that if the Republicans screwed it up
(like they're doing now) it would bode well for the Dems in 2012. That's just her opinion. It doesn't seem right to me for some reason, but who knows? There has to have been a good reason. Maybe they didn't realize they'd lose the House and figured they'd get it done "soon"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. Randi Rhodes is generally really sharp about this stuff -- but obviously Dems
have long been collaborating with Repugs on many issues!!

And, Obama has been -- sadly -- leading the way!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krawhitham Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #2
11. BS, we do not think that far ahead
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. That's kind of my thought, too. Giving us too much credit. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 12:41 AM
Response to Original message
3. DELETE - dupe. nt
Edited on Wed Apr-06-11 12:42 AM by gateley
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 12:51 AM
Response to Original message
4. One of the Blue Dogs
I think Blanche Lincoln, not sure, held up the vote on Obama's budget director because of oil leases or something. I am sue it can be googled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. You got it, but Landrieu.
'The U.S. Senate confirmed Jack Lew as White House budget director yesterday after Louisiana Democrat Mary Landrieu dropped objections that delayed the vote for two months.' Nov. 19.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-19/u-s-senate-con...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
former9thward Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. That has nothing to do with the budget.
It is the job of Congress to pass a budget. A budget director being held up for two months out of two years has nothing to do with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. A budget director has everything with coming up with a budget
that can then be presented to congress - where the haggling begins.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
former9thward Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #8
18. No director for 2 months out of 2 years.
Did 2 months out of 2 years really stop a budget proposal from being submitted? What were the personnel in the budget office doing for 2 years? Just sitting around because there was no official director for two months? BTW if you have a copy of the Constitution you will find Budget bills come from the House. No mention of a budget director or the Executive branch in the process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 12:59 AM
Response to Original message
6. Remember...
You are in DU.....we don't blame congress, dems or repubs....we blame Obama for EVERYTHING!!! Get with the program (even though it's nit a rational or mainstream opinion).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 01:24 AM
Response to Original message
10. Because they would have been able to take the Bush Tax Cuts to Reconciliation
if they had passed a budget.

By not passing the budget, they lost the option to take the Bush Tax Cuts to reconciliation.

If they had passed a budget for FY 2011, they could have denied the tax cuts to millionaires but still kept the tax cuts for the middle class.

If they had passed a budget, they would have had no excuse for ending the Bush tax cuts for the millionaires and increasing federal government revenue by a projected $700 billion over a 10 yr. period.

But they didn't pass a budget for FY2011, rolled over to republicans and did not end the tax cuts for the wealthy, and lost their option to take anything at all to Reconciliation.

They had some lame excuse for not passing a budget, but it was so lame and nonsensical that I have forgotten what it was.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sherman A1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 05:59 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. +1, Agreed & Well Said!
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 07:17 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Due to changes enacted by Democrats in 2007, you could not have run the middle class tax cuts
through Reconciliation. It massively increases the deficit outside of the ten year budget window and would not qualify.

Yes, by forgoing a budget Democrats denied themselves the opportunity to use the Reconciliation process, but it is doubtful the tax cuts could have been extended that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. They still could have pulled it off despite those changes.
If they had the will.

Of course, the point is moot now, they did not pass a budget resolution, so they have no option to use reconciliation at all for this FY.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. Democrats changed the rules to specifically prohibit running unpaid tax cuts through reconciliation
It had nothing to do with "will"

Leadership thought they had their in through exempting the MC tax cuts from the statutory PAYGO law, but that still set a 60 vote test in the Senate.

Absent nuking their own rules, there was no 51 vote solution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. "lame and nonsensical"
That's a nice tactful way of putting it. I think I prefer to be more direct and just call it a colossal cluster f**k. How can we ever get a progressive agenda passed when we have idiots in the leadership that make it easy for the rethugs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Stalwart71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 06:13 AM
Response to Original message
13. It's Obama's fault! Don't you know that he's the leader of
the legislative branch?!?!


:sarcasm: :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
19. No, if we had passed a budget, we still would be in the EXACT same situation, because we didn't pass
an appropriations bill. An appropriations bill is what's required to spend -- a budget isn't signed by the President and isn't law.

Why didn't we pass an appropriations bill? Well, we tried -- Republicans unanimously filibustered it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Jul 26th 2014, 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC