January 15, 2013
No Jack Lew

This is why I oppose Jack Lew for Treasury. He repeatedly said Obama's budget would be reducing the debt, but his own numbers showed an increase in the debt every year. He lied, both on TV shows and directly to the Senate.

Lew also, as the article shows, either lied -- or just didn't know! -- about needing 60 votes to pass a budget in the Senate.

His dishonesty, and perhaps additionally his incompetency, disqualify him from consideration. More than anything else, we need a Treasury Secretary who will be highly competent, and totally honest with the American people about our fiscal status. He has proven he is not the man for that job.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

UPDATE: added missing link.

Posted by pudge at January 15, 2013 08:30 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Although, seeing his slinky signature on the $1 bill day after day may be the impetus we need to convert to the dollar coin!

Posted by: Moderate Man on January 15, 2013 08:39 AM
2. Welcome back, Pudge.

Posted by: Eyago on January 15, 2013 08:42 AM
3. Ditto - Welcome back, Pudge ! The resident leftists are getting too big for their britches, as if you haven't noticed.

Posted by: KDS on January 15, 2013 08:51 AM
4. Thankfully, no, I had not noticed.

Posted by: pudge on January 15, 2013 08:56 AM
5. "He lied"

Pudge is obviously back in fine form.

I see that you offer no citations. No links. How do we know that you're not lyi...,er, making stuff up?

Posted by: Doctor Steve on January 15, 2013 09:17 AM
6. Steve, don't be a jerk. If you read the story, you know that I intended to include a link. I made a mistake and left it out. Boo-hoo.

It's absolutely clear that he lied. He said, we will be reducing debt, but not only would this require insanely "clever" accounting gimmicks, but his own numbers showed debt increases every year. In fact, he never showed a deficit smaller than than $600B, far from being close to the surplus he said was there.

Posted by: pudge on January 15, 2013 09:46 AM
7. Welcome back Pudge - your return spoils many a loud lefty day ... They were sure you tucked tail and ran - they were clearly projecting - again. ;)

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on January 15, 2013 10:42 AM
8. Regarding your Breitbart link. It looks like they're no better at this link thingie than you are.

"But as this copy of the OMB's own table makes clear"

Unfortuately, the link offered in that sentence doesn't go to OMB's table. It just gives us Lew's statement again. Their proof, and thus your proof, doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

With no proof, you call Lew a liar. Even Beitbart didn't go that far, at least entertaining the thought that he might have simply been mistaken. Overreact much?

"I made a mistake"

Actually, Pudge, if you had bothered to look at Breitbart's link then you already knew that your link in no way supported your accusations of lying. But then again, maybe you did check it. Is Pudge mistaken or lying? Hmm, I have no idea. Only you know, Pudge. Isn't that right? Just as only Lew knows. Then again, look at how your unquestioning readers swallowed this. I reckon it's possible that you unquestioningly took Breitbart's word for something without checking their link. What would that say about you? You don't come out of this smelling good either way, do you, Pudge?

Posted by: Doctor Steve on January 15, 2013 11:25 AM
9. Steve says, Unfortuately, the link offered in that sentence doesn't go to OMB's table. It just gives us Lew's statement again.

False. It's a multi-page document. Scroll down.

Not that it matters, because it's self-evident to everyone following this stuff that Obama has not proposed a budget with a surplus. But the document does contain the evidence that Lew's own data flatly disagrees with his claim, by a very big margin.

Try again.

Posted by: pudge on January 15, 2013 11:33 AM
10. Hmm, now was I mistaken or was I lying? I know the answer to that question, Pudge. Do you?

Posted by: Doctor Steve on January 15, 2013 11:38 AM
11. "Doctor" Steve, Obama and the Democrats are lying when they claim that their "budget(s)" will reduce the debt, period.

The only way any budget will reduce the debt is for the budget to be at the least a balanced budget with no deficit. Since none of the budgets presented during this administration will be deficit free, they will not reduce the debt.

ANY politician that claims to be reducing the debt without eliminating the deficits is a liar - slowing the rate of increase in the debt is not reducing it.

Since deficits are projected to remain with us beyond the end of Obama's second term, then none of his budget will produce a reduction in debt, thus he and Lew are liars.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on January 15, 2013 11:39 AM
12. We all take Steve's last comment to be a concession that Lew lied. When confronted with the evidence, he avoids talking about it.

Posted by: pudge on January 15, 2013 11:42 AM
13. Stevie is too typical of leftists,using stonewalling tactics and deflecting blame. Alas, when the pieces of his blather puzzle are assembled, he is duplicitous and full of self esteem, himself and void of substance.

The very reason he, MikeBS, Demosquid, tensor and scottd (among other leftists) would approve of Lew is because he is a liar - in their minds a skilled one, which is worthy of kudos from Stevie, et al. One more of their fellow inmates gets to run the asylum. I can be more objective if the need arises, but so far I have read only vacuous blather from them - which warrants minimal effort.

Posted by: KDS on January 15, 2013 12:04 PM
14. "We all take Steve's last comment to be a concession that Lew lied"

Where on earth did you get that? Desperate much? I obviously have no idea whether or not Lew lied and neither do you. But that won't stop you from calling him a liar, now will it? As you seem to be clueless again, that's the point, Pudge, you and your baseless accusations of lying. Here's the thing. You either know what you're doing with that or you don't. If you do, what does that make you, Pudge? What does that say about your character? If you don't know what you're doing, what does that say about you?

Do you need another clue?

Posted by: Doctor Steve on January 15, 2013 12:14 PM
15. "I can be more objective if the need arises"

Oh Lordy! I'll just say that I have serious doubts about that one, KDS.

Posted by: Doctor Steve on January 15, 2013 12:17 PM
16. Steve: I obviously have no idea whether or not Lew lied

That can only be true if you didn't read and understand his quote, and for bonus points, if you didn't read and understand Lew's OMB chart.


and neither do you.

False, because I did read and understand the quotes and the budget data.


you and your baseless accusations of lying

Try again. You see, I provided evidence that he lied: a claim he made, and the data that he himself provided that denies his claim.

You said I don't know whether he lied, so in order for my accusation to be baseless, you have to give a reasonable argument that the evidence I provided do not demonstrate that he lied.

You will do so, or you will retract your claim that I made a baseless accusation, or you and your baseless accusations will be henceforth banned.

I have no time to give to people who are lying. So back up or retract your claim about me. Very simple.

Posted by: pudge on January 15, 2013 12:22 PM
17. "We all take Steve's last comment to be a concession that Lew lied."

We? Wow, that one could be read several ways, Pudge, none of of which I'd call very complimentary of your wingnut readership. Any way I skin that one leads to the same conclusion - that you don't respect them very much.

Posted by: Doctor Steve on January 15, 2013 12:27 PM
18. "You will do so, or you will retract your claim that I made a baseless accusation, or you and your baseless accusations will be henceforth banned."

Do you have any idea at all just how ridiculous you sound?

You and your knee-jerk reactions, your baseless accusations of lying and your banning anyone who disagrees with you.

"We all take Steve's last comment"

You may not like it, but that revealed much about you, Pudge, and let me tell you, it ain't good. No, not at all.

Oh, by the way, I'm glad to see that you finally have started recovering from Koster's humiliating defeat. Out of curiousity, what stage of grief would you say that you're in now?

Posted by: Doctor Steve on January 15, 2013 12:39 PM
19. This guy Jack Lew is disliked by Larry Kudlow on CNBC AND Cenk Uygur on Current TV. If a far-right guy like Kudlow and a far-left guy like Cenk Uygur don't like Jack Lew for Secretary of the Treasury, then the he will probably be OK in the job.

Posted by: Politically Incorrect on January 15, 2013 02:52 PM
20. "This is why I oppose Jack Lew for Treasury. He repeatedly said Obama's budget would be reducing the debt, but his own numbers showed an increase in the debt every year. He lied, both on TV shows and directly to the Senate."

A sizable number of Americans believe that austerity is the ticket to prosperity. It is not -- and it seems an impossible task to get them to understand this.

In 1941, as America prepared for war, a lot of infrastructure was built on the government dime, airplanes built, on the government dime, munitions, vehicles for war, massive employment for the war effort. The excuse of a war gave the Puritanical Monetarists of Amerca the moral bye to jack the economy up with government spending.

There were voices of the time calling for financial austerity for the government rather than a build up for war -- but they were largely ignored, as they should have been, and as you should be now.

Posted by: str8eight on January 15, 2013 03:56 PM
21. str8eight: A sizable number of Americans believe that austerity is the ticket to prosperity. It is not -- and it seems an impossible task to get them to understand this.

Well, you see, the problem is that you cannot demonstrate that austerity is bad. I hope you don't expect people to believe something that a. cannot be demonstrated, and b. there's evidence against.


In 1941, as America prepared for war, a lot of infrastructure was built on the government dime, airplanes built, on the government dime, munitions, vehicles for war, massive employment for the war effort.

Wow, one data point and you're jumping for joy
The last time I checked, wars only destroy
There was no multiplier, consumption just shrank
As we used scarce resources for every new tank

Pretty perverse to call that prosperity
Rationed meat, rationed butter... a life of austerity
When that war spending ended your friends cried disaster
Yet the economy thrived and grew faster


There were voices of the time calling for financial austerity for the government rather than a build up for war -- but they were largely ignored, as they should have been, and as you should be now.

Shrug. Prove it.

Posted by: pudge on January 15, 2013 05:06 PM
22. Oh, and Lucy, while you are pretending to have a point about WWII, you also need to address the actual point of the comment you quoted.

He lied.

Whatever you think about increased spending versus a balanced budget, even if you think a debt higher than GDP is reasonable ... LEW LIED ABOUT THE BUDGET.

That was the point. You didn't actually address what I wrote. I never mentioned austerity versus spending, or even hinted at it.

Posted by: pudge on January 15, 2013 05:08 PM
23. @22: Whatever you think about increased spending versus a balanced budget, even if you think a debt higher than GDP is reasonable ... LEW LIED ABOUT THE BUDGET.

Nope. He was talking about stabilizing and reducing the debt as a proportion of GDP, which is done with the budget submitted.

But hey... I find it quite amusing that you're blasting someone in a Democratic administration for lying in this post, but condoning a state senator's lies to his constituents in your previous post. Truth really is a moving target for you?

Posted by: demokid on January 16, 2013 07:21 AM
24. demokid: Nope. He was talking about stabilizing and reducing the debt as a proportion of GDP

I suppose you will back that up.


I find it quite amusing that you're ... condoning a state senator's lies to his constituents in your previous post.

You're lying. I did no such thing, ever. In fact, I said explicitly that I did not know whether he lied, and no one provided any evidence that he lied.

Posted by: pudge on January 16, 2013 07:41 AM
25. Hard to imagine why these leftist trolls come back for repeated slapdowns. Such humiliation. Dr. Steve must love Obamacare. Remind me to get a second opinion.

With so many viable candidates for Treasury, MaObama picks Lew? Par for the course, choosing nominees with minimal experience or questionable background (Rice, Salazar, Jackson, Solis, Hagel...). If he wants a token Republican, how 'bout Forbes?

Posted by: Kevin Bacon on January 16, 2013 08:49 AM
26. demokid, you might also want to look at some of the Senate transcript. There was no reference, implied or otherwise, to GDP.

Very explicitly, Lew said, Our current programs and things we're doing, that we're making decisions on, we've stopped spending money that we don't have.

It's hard to imagine how anyone can read that and not thing it is a blatant lie.

Posted by: pudge on January 16, 2013 08:56 AM
27. @27: 26. demokid, you might also want to look at some of the Senate transcript. There was no reference, implied or otherwise, to GDP.

It's obvious if you look at the "Memorandum, budget totals with AMT relief fully paid for, As a percent of GDP, Debt held by the public" line of the OMB budget. Regardless of your opinion, this indicates the rationale he was using when making the statement.

While you can quibble with whether this is the best measure, he is not "lying".

And in terms of the filibuster issue you raise, a budget resolution only requires a simply majority to pass, but will require 60 votes in the Senate or cooperation of the House to enact (and the majority Democrats have neither). The whole situation is simply a matter of politics. Any budget passed by the Democrats would be rejected by Republicans and used for political fodder... so why exactly would Harry Reid bother?

Overall, the only thing that Lew is guilty of is a lack of precision when speaking in public. If you want to take him to task on that, that's just fine... political procedure is far more complex than most people give it credit for.

However, if you want to object to any of the facts that I've given, I'm more than happy to hear what you have to say. So far though, it just seems like the type of selective partisan reading that I've come to expect from you.

(And, since you've already started deleting posts and, I would expect, blocking people that you disagree with, I'm thinking that you're just going to keep me from responding to whatever ham-handed rebuttal you plan to give?)

Posted by: demokid on January 16, 2013 10:26 AM
28. demokid: It's obvious if you look at the "Memorandum, budget totals with AMT relief fully paid for, As a percent of GDP, Debt held by the public" line of the OMB budget.

When he says "we've stopped spending money that we don't have," that cannot possibly be a reference to GDP. That is an explicit reference to revenues minus expenditures. There is not even a way to make this make sense in reference to GDP. "Spending money that we don't have" is irrespective of GDP.

You are quite full of it, and everyone reading this knows it. Lew is a liar.


And in terms of the filibuster issue you raise, a budget resolution only requires a simply majority to pass, but will require 60 votes in the Senate or cooperation of the House to enact

False. You're making it up. It's not true.


Any budget passed by the Democrats would be rejected by Republicans and used for political fodder

This is not about the reasons why Reid has failed his duties, but realize that this neither explains why there was no budget under a Democratic House, nor why there is no Senate action on the Republican budgets.


Overall, the only thing that Lew is guilty of is a lack of precision when speaking in public.

No. He is guilty of being very clear and precise, and intentionally wrong.


And, since you've already started deleting posts ....

Only those that have always been removed, except for Doctor Steve, who was explicitly avoiding the point, and therefore added to that list.


... and, I would expect, blocking people that you disagree with

I've never, ever, done that.


I'm thinking that you're just going to keep me from responding to whatever ham-handed rebuttal you plan to give?

As always, if you stick to the topic, aren't abusive, and are not grossly dishonest, you're fine.

If you try to tell me that saying "we aren't spending money we don't have" refers to GDP without making a damned good argument, that would be an example of gross dishonesty.

Posted by: pudge on January 16, 2013 10:55 AM
29. @28: You are quite full of it, and everyone reading this knows it.

No, I'm providing you with the rationale that he used. You can say that he's a liar until the cows come home, but given that he HAD a rationale and basis for saying this, you're wrong. At best, you can say that he was incorrect.

And in terms of the filibuster issue you raise, a budget resolution only requires a simply majority to pass, but will require 60 votes in the Senate or cooperation of the House to enact

False. You're making it up. It's not true.

Parliamentary procedure: Why the Senate hasn't passed a budget

The problem, of course, is that the reasons for this are far more complicated and entrenched with Senate procedure. I won't call you a liar, since you didn't know any better (admittedly, nor did I until I read this article over the weekend).

... and, I would expect, blocking people that you disagree with

I've never, ever, done that.

Well, now I CAN call you a liar. Did a good job of blocking my IP address and user name for a while, until apparently most (not all) of those filters were disabled on (u)SP.

Posted by: demokid on January 16, 2013 11:07 AM
30. "He lied." Maybe he only misspoke -- like Scooter Libby.

Posted by: str8eight on January 16, 2013 12:00 PM
31. @30 - Do you think Demosquid would actually settle for that moral equivalence between Lew and Libby ?

I might consider that myself, but rabid partisan hacks like 'squid would rather throw up or be tweeted in the nude.

Posted by: KDS on January 16, 2013 12:11 PM
32. Demokid@29
Interesting link. Of course the bottom line is the current House and Senate (and throw in the President) are never going to agree to the same budget priorities. There is a philosophical difference there that the House GOP won't bend on.

On filtering: I don't believe there was ever an actual filter (or block). Anyone could always post, however, Pudge as moderator of the post has always had the ability to delete as fast as one posts. You are wrong on this one.

Posted by: tc on January 16, 2013 12:37 PM
33. @31: @30 - Do you think Demosquid would actually settle for that moral equivalence between Lew and Libby ?

Remind me again if Lew was prosecuted for obstruction of justice?

@32: Of course the bottom line is the current House and Senate (and throw in the President) are never going to agree to the same budget priorities. There is a philosophical difference there that the House GOP won't bend on.

Which is a fair point, but the assumption that the Democratic-controlled Senate should put on a big show just to say that they "voted on a budget" is silly. Unless it would actually get something done, it's unreasonable to expect that they would take an action that would leave them exposed to attack.

Posted by: demo kid on January 16, 2013 12:46 PM
34. @32: On filtering: I don't believe there was ever an actual filter (or block).

Better believe that there was -- it stated specifically that "this user is not allowed to post comments" for months, regardless of whether I was posting about pudge's post or Jim's random mumblings. It was interesting, too, as it was tied to both my user name and my IP address.

Posted by: demokid on January 16, 2013 12:50 PM
35. demokid: I'm providing you with the rationale that he used.

No, you are not. Again, there is nothing about GDP in the claim that "Our current programs and things we're doing, that we're making decisions on, we've stopped spending money that we don't have."

You are inventing a rationale he was not using in the relevant quotes.


Parliamentary procedure: Why the Senate hasn't passed a budget

I apologize, I misread your original statement. You wrote, "And in terms of the filibuster issue you raise, a budget resolution only requires a simply majority to pass, but will require 60 votes in the Senate or cooperation of the House to enact."

I wrongly assumed you were talking about what I was talking about, which is that the budget should never be passed without cooperation of the House. Deeming resolutions explicitly against the will of one of the houses of the legislature are anathema, in my view. The only way to legitimately pass a bill is with agreement of both houses, and you only need a majority of the Senate to do this. That was my point, and Jack Lew was absolutely wrong about it.


Well, now I CAN call you a liar. Did a good job of blocking my IP address and user name for a while, until apparently most (not all) of those filters were disabled on (u)SP.

You're wrong. Whatever I did -- with you or anyone else -- it was not because you disagreed with me. You're lying. I've never blocked anyone or removed any comments for disagreement. I've only ever done it for, broadly, abuse: directly abusing people, or being repeatedly dishonest about facts or arguments.

For example, you are continuing to dishonestly state that Jack Lew's comments were regarding GDP.


Which is a fair point, but the assumption that the Democratic-controlled Senate should put on a big show just to say that they "voted on a budget" is silly.

No one said that. What we've said is that the Senate should take up the House's budget, and vote on it. Just vote. If they want to, they can amend it and pass it, and then conference with the House. That is how we've done it for hundreds of years. The only difference now is that the Democrats recognized that, given we have such a historically massive deficit, that passing a budget admitting we are bankrupting the country is politically damaging.


Better believe that there was -- it stated specifically that "this user is not allowed to post comments" for months, regardless of whether I was posting about pudge's post or Jim's random mumblings.

FWIW, I only have control over my own posts.

Posted by: pudge on January 16, 2013 04:29 PM
36. tc: Interesting link. Of course the bottom line is the current House and Senate (and throw in the President) are never going to agree to the same budget priorities. There is a philosophical difference there that the House GOP won't bend on.

Funny, because we've had similar splits in the past, but still managed to come up with budgets.

Also, please don't forget to respond regarding your false claims about me in the other discussion.

Posted by: pudge on January 16, 2013 04:31 PM
37. And DK, to be clear:

Your claim is that when Jack Lew said the President's plan "will get us, over the next several years, to the point where we can look the American people in the eye and say we're not adding to the debt anymore; we're spending money that we have each year, and then we can work on bringing down our national debt," that he didn't mean we were not actually making the debt bigger, but that we were not making it bigger as a percentage of GDP.

My contention, which you fail to address, is a. that he never mentioned GDP, and b. that some of his statements cannot be a reference to GDP. Even in that quote, saying "we're spending money that we have each year" -- implying we are not spending money we do not have -- is clear. There's no concept of spending money we have, or don't have, as a percentage of GDP. It means our revenues match or exceed our expenditures, with no borrowing required.

And his statement to the Senate is even more clear: "Our current programs and things we're doing, that we're making decisions on, we've stopped spending money that we don't have."

You've not addressed any of this.

Please do so.

Posted by: pudge on January 16, 2013 04:38 PM
38. As usual, pudge, browbeating people doesn't equate winning an argument. After these posts, please feel free to say whatever you want. I've said my piece.

@35: No, you are not. Again, there is nothing about GDP in the claim that "Our current programs and things we're doing, that we're making decisions on, we've stopped spending money that we don't have."

And there's nothing about dollars, either.

Regardless of whether you believe that GDP is the preferred means of measuring debt, his statement is true if that was the measure used. Without some type of definitive proof that he was talking about absolute figures, you're not in a position to say that he was lying.

You are inventing a rationale he was not using in the relevant quotes.

I'm inventing nothing. I'm indicating that his statement is true. You're stating that it is false if you make certain assumptions that you cannot prove (i.e., that he was talking about dollar amounts and not GDP).

You can claim that he implied, or that he exaggerated. However, he did not say anything that was untrue.

Deeming resolutions explicitly against the will of one of the houses of the legislature are anathema, in my view.

Regardless of your personal opinions, it is still part of the budget process... and it's been done by the Republican-controlled House and the Democrat-controlled Senate multiple times.

You're wrong. Whatever I did -- with you or anyone else -- it was not because you disagreed with me. You're lying. I've never blocked anyone or removed any comments for disagreement. I've only ever done it for, broadly, abuse: directly abusing people, or being repeatedly dishonest about facts or arguments.

For example, you are continuing to dishonestly state that Jack Lew's comments were regarding GDP.

I'm not being dishonest -- I'm stating a rational opinion. Feel free to block or remove these comments if you like, but calling me a liar is absurd.

No one said that. What we've said is that the Senate should take up the House's budget, and vote on it. Just vote. If they want to, they can amend it and pass it, and then conference with the House. That is how we've done it for hundreds of years. The only difference now is that the Democrats recognized that, given we have such a historically massive deficit, that passing a budget admitting we are bankrupting the country is politically damaging.

Or, to put another spin on it, the Republicans passed budgets for years with deficits, and are now seeing an opportunity to use the budget as a political cudgel against their enemies.

The House budget has zero chance of passing in the Senate, and vice versa. Neither would either bill have any hope of reconciliation, given the hard-line stance that the House Republicans have taken with it. Current PAYGO rules, the Budget Control Act, and other processes within Congress have resulted in a piecemeal system that allows the federal government to be funded, and appropriations bills are still being passed in Congress.

Politically, there is no imperative for the House Republicans and Senate Democrats to come to any sort of agreement in committee, as the country still functions without it. The main purpose of the House Budget was to score political points, not to facilitate the budget process.

(Your second comment in a few minutes.)

Posted by: demokid on January 16, 2013 08:26 PM
39. My contention, which you fail to address, is a. that he never mentioned GDP, and b. that some of his statements cannot be a reference to GDP. Even in that quote, saying "we're spending money that we have each year" -- implying we are not spending money we do not have -- is clear. There's no concept of spending money we have, or don't have, as a percentage of GDP. It means our revenues match or exceed our expenditures, with no borrowing required.

If he explicitly mentioned that he was talking about absolute dollar values, you'd have a case, but he didn't. In fact, Lew's witness statement from the Senate hearing in February 2011 shows graphs of deficits projected as a percent of GDP.

Disagree with the applicability of the figures all you like, but calling him a liar when you're making the wrong assumptions about his statements is incorrect.

And his statement to the Senate is even more clear: "Our current programs and things we're doing, that we're making decisions on, we've stopped spending money that we don't have."

Again, as defined by GDP, which was a unit of measure explicitly used in his presentation to the Senate. The budget as outlined stabilizes the deficit to the point where it is no longer growing in terms of the percent of GDP.

At best, you can call him idiomatic with that statement, but his Senate presentation is quite explicit about the figures used.

Posted by: demokid on January 16, 2013 09:08 PM
40. DK: browbeating people doesn't equate winning an argument

I am doing my best to get you to actually make an argument. And I've failed.


And his statement to the Senate is even more clear: "Our current programs and things we're doing, that we're making decisions on, we've stopped spending money that we don't have."

Again, as defined by GDP

Your claim is nonsense. It has literally no meaning. The phrase "we've stopped spending money that we don't have" necessarily has nothing to do with GDP. Can you even explain how that could even possibly make sense? I keep asking you, and you keep refusing, which in itself is telling.


The budget as outlined stabilizes the deficit to the point where it is no longer growing in terms of the percent of GDP.

As I've said, even if he meant that, it still holds true that "we've stopped spending money that we don't have" has nothing to do with GDP.


At best, you can call him idiomatic with that statement

It's not idiomatic. It is an explicit and clear -- and false -- statement that we have zero deficit. That is precisely what he said.

I defy you to explain how "we've stopped spending money that we don't have" could possibly mean anything else. Simply saying "GDP! GDP!" without explaining it doesn't get you anywhere close to making an argument.


Regardless of your personal opinions, it is still part of the budget process...

... one that is irrelevant to my point, and to what Lew said, which was that a budget can be filibustered. It cannot be.

The only thing that can be filibustered is an extraordinary and (to many people) illegitimate -- though not unprecedented -- way of bypassing the other house of the legislature in sending a bill to the President. Again, this just isn't relevant.


I'm not being dishonest -- I'm stating a rational opinion.

In fact, you're not. I've repeatedly pointed out that Lew said "we've stopped spending money that we don't have," and you're repeatedly refused to explain how this could possibly be true under any circumstances or calculations, let alone that it is what Lew meant. You've provided some reason to think he was talking about debt in terms of GDP, but none that his claim that "we've stopped spending money that we don't have" is in terms of GDP, or even how that could possibly make any sense.


Neither would either bill have any hope of reconciliation ...

That is only true because Harry Reid doesn't want a budget. If both sides wanted a budget, then you'd be wrong. And you're obviously wrong, as you yourself will prove in a moment.


... given the hard-line stance that the House Republicans have taken with it.

You are so completely full of crap. You realize, of course, that there was no budget passed when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, right? Filibusters of deeming bills, reconciliation with opposing parties, none of that was an issue. The Democrats simply chose to not pass a budget because passing trillion-dollar budget deficits looks bad.

But no, no stance by Republicans would have prevented a budget. And how do we know that?


Current PAYGO rules, the Budget Control Act, and other processes within Congress have resulted in a piecemeal system that allows the federal government to be funded, and appropriations bills are still being passed in Congress.

Exactly. If the Republicans would have prevented a budget due to any "hard-line stance," then the sum of these appropriations bills would also be impossible. We would have had the government lose funding, and grind to a halt, because those appropriations bills would not have been passed.

So you're just full of it.

Politically, there is no imperative for the House Republicans and Senate Democrats to come to any sort of agreement in committee, as the country still functions without it. The main purpose of the House Budget was to score political points, not to facilitate the budget process.

Every budget tries to score political points, including Obama's, including every one that has ever come up in my lifetime, including the second one passed by Reid and Pelosi and the first one Obama signed -- our first trillion dollar deficit for FY2009 -- and probably forever before that.

There was nothing extraordinary about the House budget for FY2013, or any other. The only extraordinary thing here is that Reid and the Democrats refuse to pass any budget, even one they would agree with. That's clear.

Posted by: pudge on January 16, 2013 10:19 PM
41. The online store online sale: chan luu,uggWebsite:www.chanluugirls.jp,www.ugginjp.org

Posted by: chan luu on January 22, 2013 02:48 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?