PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/index.php)
-   Off-Topic Discussion (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Uninsured pay $30 billion for health care: study (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/showthread.php?t=231310)

DieselAddict 08-29-2008 12:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aklim (Post 1949883)
Know why I think people like you are part of the problem? When I said that our govt can't balance the budget, I am talking about the exec and legislative branches. I don't think the judicial has much influence here. IN THEORY, the E branch and the L branch are keeping each other in check. In real life, people like you blame the E branch for the budget. Did Clinton craft the budget and sign it? Did Bush write and sign the budget? Nope. AFAIK, the Prez, whomever it is, sends his REQUEST to Congress. Beyond that, he can only sign it into law or veto it. People like Tom W will say that the veto is very powerful. Yes, in theory. However, if the budget is held up, who will people like you blame? Who did you credit and blame for the budget? It is people like you who will put more heat on the E branch. Somehow, the L branch is missing in your equations. IOW, if it comes to a standoff, who will be under more pressure. So, you think Clinton wrote a balanced budget? Probably if you consider that he signed on the dotted line after getting what he wants.
I think you're wrong on this. It is the E branch that drafts the budget, though I'm not totally sure. I do remember Bush talking about HIS budget about a year ago. At least he sounded like it's his budget. And some people were criticizing him for underestimating things like the true cost of the Iraq war.

aklim 08-29-2008 01:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DieselAddict (Post 1950699)
I think you're wrong on this. It is the E branch that drafts the budget, though I'm not totally sure. I do remember Bush talking about HIS budget about a year ago. At least he sounded like it's his budget. And some people were criticizing him for underestimating things like the true cost of the Iraq war.
Yes, the E branch drafts a budget request. It is only a request though. IIRC, it goes to the House and Senate for Budget Resolution.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/indiv/usgd/budget.html

The budget process for the U.S. Federal government involves both the executive and legislative branches of government. The President submits a budget to Congress, which then passes legislation to actually appropriate and authorize funds to be spent.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa101799.htm

The President's budget serves as a "starting point" for the Congress to consider. Congress is under no obligation to adopt all or any of the President's budget and often makes significant changes. However, since the President must ultimately approve all future bills they propose, Congress is often reluctant to completely ignore the priorities of the President's budget.

aklim 08-29-2008 01:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DieselAddict (Post 1950699)
See, so with the budget it's kind of in reverse when compared to drafting and signing regular bills into law. So I think it's fair to blame the E branch for any budget problems, since it is the E branch that drafts it and approves any changes to it.
It is kind of in reverse TO A POINT. The E branch sends it's request to Congress. After that, it is basically the same as drafting and signing regular bills into law. The budget is, as the 2nd link points out, a STARTING POINT. Once it gets to Congress it becomes "Round and Round we go. Where it stops, nobody knows.". The only "leverage" that Clinton or Bush, etc, etc had was "I will veto". When things get hairy, the E branch will get the heat. NOT CONGRESS. When the budget delay causes a problem, who do YOU look towards? If Congress puts their pork in the bill and the Prez vetos it and as a result, troops don't get enough armor and get shot like swiss cheese, who do you blame for it? The Prez that didn't care about the troops.

So yes, he has the veto but he is more under the gun than Congress when it screws up. IOW, Congress gets a free ride. When it comes to holding out, who do you think can hold out longer?

DieselAddict 08-29-2008 02:04 PM
I deleted my prev post because later I looked into your links and it seems that the final budget does not require the president's signature, but like you mentioned, congress typically does not disregard the president's proposals.

You're wrong on the free ride for Congress. Remember how the democrats wanted to cut the funding for the war but they were afraid to? Then they agreed to fund it but include a timetable for withdrawal. Bush didn't hesitate to veto it and kept vetoing the bills until they removed the call for a timetable as well. Bush took a huge gamble and get lucky.

aklim 08-29-2008 02:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DieselAddict (Post 1951077)
I deleted my prev post because later I looked into your links and it seems that the final budget does not require the president's signature, but like you mentioned, congress typically does not disregard the president's proposals.

You're wrong on the free ride for Congress. Remember how the democrats wanted to cut the funding for the war but they were afraid to? Then they agreed to fund it but include a timetable for withdrawal. Bush didn't hesitate to veto it and kept vetoing the bills until they removed the call for a timetable as well. Bush took a huge gamble and get lucky.
Not totally disregard because they might need him later on but they don't have to give him everything he wants either. On top of it, they tack what they want on it. "Oh, you want A, B and C? No problem. The Dems will want D, E and F. Well, not to be outdone, the Reps will want G, H and I." Like I asked, assuming this is true, who really has more control of the budget? Even if you say it is a 50-50 shot, how is it the Prez gets most of the blame? If he gets most of the blame, should he not have a higher level of control?

Bush is dedicated to his cause (right or wrong is another issue) that they are sure he will make a huge enough stink and they don't want to risk it. Remember, he is finished as Prez. The soonest that he can be Prez again is in 2012. They still have much of their career in front of them. They know he is going to somehow blame them too and they want no blame. Still, even if you do disagree with me that it is a free ride, will you not say that the Prez has no more than 50% control but gets more than 50% of the blame?

DieselAddict 08-29-2008 03:51 PM
I would agree in general that the Pres gets too much blame. Some people blame him for just about everything, from high gas prices to being unable to pay their bills. It does sound like the Congress has greater control over the budget than the Pres. But this doesn't change the fact the the republican-led congress of 2000-2004 has taken a significant surplus and turned it into a huge deficit. And I didn't hear Bush complain about it.

aklim 08-29-2008 03:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DieselAddict (Post 1951151)
But this doesn't change the fact the the republican-led congress of 2000-2004 has taken a significant surplus and turned it into a huge deficit.

And I didn't hear Bush complain about it.
No it doesn't. But if we Blame the Prez when Congress has more control, how will it help? Maybe we need to elect somebody else in Congress to represent us and our needs better. If that still isn't enough, find a better Prez.

Why would he or any Prez? As long as they get what they want out of it, why would they really care? The budget process is a "free for all". When the Prez submits the budget REQUEST, he is saying "Here is what I want. As long as I get it, tack whatever you want. If I don't get what I want, I won't give you what you want."

732002 08-29-2008 08:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aklim (Post 1950292)
50%? What about the military personnel?
They can be trained to work in health care jobs.

aklim 08-29-2008 08:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 732002 (Post 1951281)
They can be trained to work in health care jobs.
Not sure if you are serious or not but with the current nursing shortage, what we are seeing is that they are basically putting warm bodies out there. Not much good but they have a pulse. Is that what you want taking care of you? You cannot just train somebody to do this or that. Either they have the aptitude or they don't. On paper I can be a better RN than the wife. In practice, you could drug her and booze her and she'd still come out ahead of me on the floor.

And what will you do for soldiers when you need them? Buy a copy of "Soldier of Fortune" and look in the want ads? Or try re-retrain the soldiers you put to health care to be soldiers again? In the meantime, you can call a "time out" and hope the other side gives you a period to train the soldiers?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:52 PM.
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2024 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website