Are you creepy crawlies still living under this rock? - Page 13

d-ray657 · #**121** 10-12-2013, 09:16 PM

Did you have a good fishing trip Chas?

Regards,

D-Ray

bobabode · #**122** 10-12-2013, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Did you have a good fishing trip Chas?

Regards,

D-Ray

+1. Welcome back, Chas.

Charles · #**123** 10-12-2013, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Did you have a good fishing trip Chas?

Regards,

D-Ray

Thanks for asking.

Yes, it was nice for a change.

Chas

whell · #**124** 10-13-2013, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by finnbow

Uh, no. They've long since acquiesced to the GOP's budget number at the sequester level.

I thought the sequester was the Obama team's idea. Fascinating how history gets rewritten before our very eyes.

finnbow · #**125** 10-13-2013, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whell

I thought the sequester was the Obama team's idea. Fascinating how history gets rewritten before our very eyes.

You missed the point. Again.

donquixote99 · #**126** 10-13-2013, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whell

I thought the sequester was the Obama team's idea. Fascinating how history gets rewritten before our very eyes.

1. The sequester was included in a spending reduction plan as a crude 'stick' to force a negotiation of rational budget cuts. It wasn't supposed to be implemented, but negotiations didn't succeed, so it was. Given how the negotiations went, I think it's more fair to say the implementation of the sequester was the Republican's idea.

2. The Republicans have since taken on 'sequester level' as 'maximum going forward' and thus THEIR budget number for next year is at 'sequester level.' It is not the administration's budget.

mpholland · #**127** 10-13-2013, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donquixote99

1. The sequester was included in a spending reduction plan as a crude 'stick' to force a negotiation of rational budget cuts. It wasn't supposed to be implemented, but negotiations didn't succeed, so it was. Given how the negotiations went, I think it's more fair to say the implementation of the sequester was the Republican's idea.

2. The Republicans have since taken on 'sequester level' as 'maximum going forward' and thus THEIR budget number for next year is at 'sequester level.' It is not the administration's budget.

Not to argue the sequestration point here, but what exactly is the administrative budget? Is it what is asked for, what is spent, or what is approved? They seem to be quite different.

donquixote99 · #**128** 10-13-2013, 11:30 AM

My meaning above is 'asked for.' Of course no administration as far as I know has ever gotten what was asked for. Still I've seen descriptions of the process that say the bulk of the spending plan is always what comes out of OMB, that Congress has no way to produce a detailed alternate. I've also heard it said many times that the administration budget is 'dead on arrival' at Congress. Strange indeed are the ways of Washington, and the sayings.

mpholland · #**129** 10-13-2013, 11:45 AM

I know at work I always have to ask for more money than I know I am going to get. That way at least I might be able to settle for what they offer.

finnbow · #**130** 10-13-2013, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpholland

Not to argue the sequestration point here, but what exactly is the administrative budget? Is it what is asked for, what is spent, or what is approved? They seem to be quite different.

Until just yesterday, the Dems expressed a willingness to accept a long-term CR at sequester levels. For all practical purposes, the CR becomes the budget when and if a budget doesn't pass both houses and get signed by the President (this has been the case for 5-6 years already). Just yesterday, Reid said that the Senate Dems are no longer willing to go forward with a long-term CR at sequester levels. We'll see.