" make that into appropriation acts."
Sorry Joe. That's just another way of saying they changed the president's budget into something of their own. Of course, if he does'nt like their new budget, he can do the veto thing. Joe, thanks for coming clean. I appreciate that.
Congress is responsible for the national debt. They must pass all the bills for spending. The president only signs the bill or vetoes it. Look at all the pork and under handed manovors congressmen pull to increase their wealth. And we idiots re-elect them over and over. Most congressmen after just one term most have amassed over a million dollars in wealth. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME.
Sorry, willie boy, you flunk both civics and realpolitic. Congress never passes a congressional budget back to the White House. They take the President's Budget and may make that into appropriation acts. If it unsufficiently mirrors the President's Budget, the President may veto the acts or, as Bush has done, scream at the top of his lungs that Congress isn't supporting the troops until they do. Clinton actually had the balls to go toe-to-toe with Congress over his budget when Congress wanted to change it. He let them shut down the government until Newt blinked and passed Clinton's budget. You remember, the one that balanced the budget? Probably not.
Joe, just a little clarification. You forgot to end your thought. You started by saying it originates in the White House and is called the President's budget. So far, you get an A+. And then it goes to Congress. That's another A+ for you. But then the Congress changes it to suit them and sends it back to the President. At that point, it transforms into Congress's budget. That's the part you left out. That's why you get an F for your final grade. Joe, hope everything's great and the family is well. Have a nice one.
Bullshit. The budget originates in the White House. That's why it's called The President's Budget. And when Congress does not immediately rubber stamp it, the Republicans start howling like banshees that Democrats are not supporting the troops by holding up their salaries.
You: "How can you claim that the debt resulted from tax cuts?"
Easy. Because it's correct. The national debt is nothing more than the accumulated annual deficits. A deficit means you spent more money than you took in. You can balance a budget by either spending less, or by earning more. You can unbalance a budget by either spending more, or by earning less. Since most of our budget is entitlement programs that cannot be easily cut, massive tax cuts result in reduced revenue, which equals an annual deficit which adds to the debt. You follow?
You: "Has spending not gone up every year since the tax cuts went into effect?"
Yes, it has. By Bush's invasion of Iraq. That is the largest cost growth, to the tune of nearly $100 billion a year. I'd be more than happy to eliminate that spending in order to pay for the tax cuts.
You: "Have revenues not gone up every year since the tax cuts went into effect?"
Come on, T-bird, don't play me for a sucker. Revenues go up mostly because our working population increases as people age and enter the workforce. There is little doubt that Bush's tax cuts are primarily responsible for the deficits. The fact that as a natural course of population growth the revenues increased too does not mean tax cuts are responsible for revenue growth.
You: "Are there not two sides to this equation?"
Absolutely. The disagreement appears to be which side do you work on first. One thing everybody should agree on is you don't exacerbate both sides. You don't cut your revenue stream at the same time you massively increase spending. If Bush wanted war so badly, why is it too much to ask that he pay for it by not giving the rich folks a huge tax cut at the very same time? Force him to choose his favorite cash recipient: rich people or Iraq. But your implication that Bush's tax cuts are responsible for annual revenue increases is refuted by just about every serious economist.