GDP Goes Negative In Fourth Quarter

The 2009 budget was a Democrat budget, support by, voted for by Senator Obama and signed into law by President Obama. Bad try.

 

The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request submitted by President George W. Bush to the 110th Congress. The final resolution was approved by the House on June 5, 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

 

Lol, as Iriemon pointed out, you're sorely mistaken.

 

Um...try reading what I posted. I realize that it;s a bit much for your ,limited mentation to process, but give it a shot,willya?

As posted :

"Article I, section5, clause 2, of the Constitution reserves to each House of Congress the authority to determine the rules governing its procedures."

That would be Article 1, section 5, clause 2, of , yes, the CONSTITUTION, regarding the SPECIFICLLY DELINEATED , EXLUSSIVE POWER of the Congress, to oversee spending, not a general "power to legislate" as your limited understanding apparently deduces.

This is the means by which Congress determined to execute their Constitutional duty to oversee expenditures, and yes, EVEN THE POTUS is SUBJECT to that OVERSIGHT, via whatever menas the Congresshas determined to administer it. If they REQUIRE A BUDGET,then a BUDGET IS CONSTITUTTIONALLY REQUIRED, unless Congress is, somehow, RELIEVED of its powers of financial oversight.

I know...that's more than you can get your little kitty-kat (why did you copy Kathyet's avatar?) head around...

- - - Updated - - -

So, the Democrats DID NOT control Congress, in 2009? Or 2008? Wow...that's a nice "revision"...

 

The question was "Has government spending really gone down?"

No, not in the context of the increases they imposed first.

Are you refuting anything I posted? That Obama and the Democrats increased spending by 29% in two years over the last Bush Republican budget?

 

So your proof that the CONSTITUTION REQUIRES a budget to be passed ANNUALLY is because there is a law.

LOL. We better get that "Civics for Beginniers" class cranked up. Some of us don't know the difference between the Constitution and a statute.

 

How about you put the (*)(*)(*)(*) clause in the (*)(*)(*)(*) context?

"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide."

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member."

This has nothin to do with the budget process, NOTHIN.

 

Iriemon pointed out nothing.

What are you disputing? The 2009 budget was a Democrat budget, support by, voted for by Senator Obama and signed into law by President Obama. Bad try.

 

Now...let's see..who controlled the Congress then.....hmmmmm???

Try to hide the KNOWN HISTORICAL FACTS again, whydontcha? Tell us all again how the MORTGAGE CRISIS,and ECONOMELT, was "Bush's Fault" ,and not the Sleazoid Dems' running the GSEs...

- - - Updated - - -

And the law they passed, as how they determined to exercise their CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF OVERSIGHT= A Budget is REQUIRED.

 

FU** everything else....

What open JOBS are you touting or creating or inventing for us in 2013?

Anything else is just plain self touting BS and if adopted by Obama, known BS by him too.

 

Question: "Has government spending really gone down? Can you show me the year to year totals?"

Answer: Yes.

Year - Outlays - % chng
2010 3,456.2 -1.7%
2011 3,598.1 4.1%
2012 3,540.0 -1.6%

No one claimed they went down during the Bush years. They never did.

 

Positive news? Like the unemployment number actually clicking up? Or the fact that our economy as a whole actually shrunk from October to December.....? Wow...that is fantastic.....soooooo glad this useful idiot was put back in the White House.....whooo hoooo!!!

Thank you for proving my point.

 

My proof of the Constitiutional requirement for a budget , is that the SOLE GOVERNMENT BODY IN CHARGE OF FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT, the CONGRESS, has DETERMINED SO.

All duly passed statutes MUST BE OBEYED, per thre CONSTITUTION, as well.

Keep up the Leftninny Word Dance...it's funny to watch.

 

The Democrats. Now...let's see..who controlled the White House then and submitted the budget.....hmmmmm???

It wasn't the Dems who killed the only bill ever passed by a chamber of the Republican controlled Congress to regulated F/F. That was "Mr. Ownership Society."

So how does that make it "REQUIRED by the CONSTITUTION" as you asserted, Mr. Beginners Civics Class?

 

Yes began as the Presidents statutorily require budget submission which was DOA and never even voted on in committee. The "House" in your above statement was the House of Pelosi. The Democrat budget appropriations bills were supported and voted for by Obama and signed into law in March of 2009.

 

Speaking from a triple dip viewpoint, it looks better than most.

 

It actually looks worse, much worse as this is the worst recovery in modern history. And historically the worse the recession the stronger the recovery. Obama has managed to blow that.

 

You can't possibly be having more fun than me watching you lecture us on how the Constitution requires a budget be passed annually, and then cite a statute to prove it while lecturing us about needing a beginners civics class. : D

 

http://archive.mises.org/16107/bushs-huge-budget-numbers-blamed-on-obama/

"The federal fiscal year lasts from October 1 to September 30 (It ended on June 30 prior to 1976). So, the 2009 fiscal year ended in September of 2009, eight months after Bush left office. When Obama was sworn into office, Bush had already submitted his 3.1 trillion dollar 2009 budget almost a year earlier. He then signed the stack of resulting appropriations bills submitted to him by Congress throughout 2008 which authorized the federal spending that would take place once the 2009 FY actually began in October. Then, in the fall of 2008, Bush supported and signed additional spending bills providing for various bailouts and stimulus programs that marked the end of his presidency, and which would show up as spending in 2009. Needless to say, the already-enormous 2009 budget that Bush had submitted in early 2008 was not totally reflective of the full impact of the huge spending increases that would eventually be authorized by Bush. Bush’s original budget was $3.1 trillion, but once one adds in all the bailouts and stimulus spending also supported by Bush, the number is actually much larger, and this is the number that shows up in the spending figures now being attributed to Obama for FY2009."

 

Hmmm the one that was DOA and never even considered you mean?

Yes and why didn't he support it? More of that ole context thing you like to ignore to make your specious points.

Because the Constitution mandates the the Congress set the rules making those rules required by the Constitution.

 

Bluesguy is partially correct. This recovery, like the one before it and the one before it, have all been slower than recoveries used to be before the Reagan Revolution:

Since the early 1980s, every single recovery has been slower and shallower.

Compare the recoveries in 1990, 2001, and the current one with earlier recoveries:



This chart is older, but the differences are dramatic:



All the recoveries before the mid 1980s were sharper and faster.

IMO, this is not simply some gigantic coincidence. Csumer spending drives the economy and recoveries, but has been anemic. The great engine of spenidng, the middle class, is tapped out and overridden in debt.

And I think a big reason we've seen slower recoveries since the early 1980s is because we've taken almost all the growth in income and wealth of this country over the past 30 years and diverted it to the richest 10%, and mostly to the richest 1%:



As a result, the middle class, the great engine of spending, and thus demand, doesn't have the additional resources to spend. So when we have a recession, is it any surprise that recovery is slower? We've taken the assets and purchasing power away from the middle class, who spend it, and transferred them to the richest, who proportionately do not spend it, and thus have gutted the engine of growth and recovery.

The problem isn't an overall lack of money to spend. There are trillions and of trillions of dollars sitting in offshore bank accounts and uin corporations and banks not being spent. The problem is that our "trickle down" policies over the past 30 years have not "trickled down" but instead have tranferred those assets to people who don't spend them and away from people who do.

So should it be any surprise that when we look at the recoveries sinse the Reagan "trickle down" revolution took effect, including the current one, we see shallower, flatter recoveries than we did before?

If we want stronger recoveries and economy, we need to reverse "trickle down" policies that have funnelled the nation's wealth and income to the 1% and offshore bank accounts, and instead adopt policies that build up the middle classes instead of pandering to the 1%.

 

Article 1 section 5 deals with Congressional proceedings against its own members,
I have no idea how you think that has anything to do with laws.

 

His budget submission just as in FY2008 was DOA, the Democrats did not consider it. He signed various DEMOCRAT spending and continuing resolutions to keep the government running.

Obama signed the final budget documents in March of 2009, the budget he supported and voted for as a Senator.

Obama signs U.S. budget into law; Oregon gets $211 million in goodies
Published: Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 7:51 PM
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/03/obama_signs_us_budget_into_law.html

 

You mean just like you are always criticizing Obama about? No double standard there.

You'll have to ask him why he didn't support the bill that over 90% of House Republicans approved. He put out an official statement saying he opposed the bill, which effectively killed any chance of getting any reform, with a bunch of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) that was common from his administration.

Got it. So from now on, you'll agree its fair for me to say that anything that is a law is required by the Constitution.

I'm thinking Grok is right about needing a beginner's civics class around here.

 

Non-sequintur

Oh I see you are ignorant of a matter of which you are trying to make statements of fact. Or is it that it blows your argument? Once again the lack of any intelligent context and the dishonesty by omission.

If you are going to make the statement that Bush did not sign this document then man up and tell why he didn't. You know because I have told you before and you had to back down. He publicly stated why he was not supporting that particular bill and you claim ignorance while using that as a reason to support your argument.

How laughable.

Yes so the budget process is set up as required by the Constitution.