Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
You read it,
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="vvvvvvv" data-source="post: 1514026" data-attributes="member: 5151"><p>The bill must originate in the House, which means that they have more power than the Senate over the contents of the bill. As for the Presidential veto power, vetoing a budget bill is a politically expedient way to not be re-elected in 2012.</p><p></p><p>So politically, Republicans have quite a bit more say in the budget than Democrats do right now.</p><p></p><p>What peeves me is them selling it as a $37.7B cut. Mr. Lankford should have called it an "extremely irresponsible" budget rather than the "extremely responsible" budget that he did. It shows how little respect they have in Washington for you - the taxpayer.</p><p></p><p>Only in Washington can you call a $177B budget increase a $37.7B cut and get away with it. If the government were a company in the private sector, everyone of them would be fired for fraud and gross misconduct.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="vvvvvvv, post: 1514026, member: 5151"] The bill must originate in the House, which means that they have more power than the Senate over the contents of the bill. As for the Presidential veto power, vetoing a budget bill is a politically expedient way to not be re-elected in 2012. So politically, Republicans have quite a bit more say in the budget than Democrats do right now. What peeves me is them selling it as a $37.7B cut. Mr. Lankford should have called it an "extremely irresponsible" budget rather than the "extremely responsible" budget that he did. It shows how little respect they have in Washington for you - the taxpayer. Only in Washington can you call a $177B budget increase a $37.7B cut and get away with it. If the government were a company in the private sector, everyone of them would be fired for fraud and gross misconduct. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
You read it,
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom