re: "reasonable" Senate. No "reasonable" Senate is going to agree to essentially destroying Medicare and repealing ObamaCare and STILL not end up with a true balanced budget.
It's not a serious proposal and the Senate as much as said that.

re: too big under Bush. we agree but Bush and company have billed themselves as fiscal conservatives and Dems have always been characterized as tax&spenders.

Why would anyone with half a brain be expecting Obama to be a better fiscal conservative that those who claim they are and have always claimed so?

What exactly can Obama seriously do ? Do you want him to advocate cuts against things he believes should not be cut? Why would you expect him to act like a fiscal conservative when the folks who say they are - won't act like fiscal conservatives themselves?

have I got a point?

re: holding nose... the spending in the CRs came in large part from the Congresses BEFORE 2009 - and no subsequent Congress cut any of the spending that was in the budgets PRIOR to 2009. Both parties just carried it forward .

re: the stimulus - grab bag... stipulated... the point of stimulus is to stimulate increased aggregate demand to jump start a stalled economy. It's considered a valid tactic by most economists in most countries when the economy stalls.

re WHEN the spending started - is not irrelevant when people blame Obama for it. He had virtually nothing to do with it.

re: Bush did it. the spending was increased - DOD/National defense essentially doubled. Medicare Part D was passed - taxes were cut - the economy tanked and revenues shrunk further.
these are facts. I'm not blaming Bush. Bush ADVOCATED for the spending and cuts and Congress agreed and Bush signed it. That's true also.

re: justification for doubling down. Nope. It's just that Obama did not create the debt and he cannot cut the spending. Congress created the debt and only Congress can cut it.

I'm just seeking the truth on this. When we say Obama has added 5 trillion to the debt - that simply is false. He has added nothing to the debt. What he did not do - was advocate for cuts - that's totally true but at least he did not do what Bush did - who advocated for increased spending at the same time he advocated for cutting taxes... and there was no PlanB if tax revenues fell even further behind ... what was originally counted on to keep the deficit spending low. When the economy tanked the small deficits exploded when tax revenues cratered.

"When the two houses fail ... the GOP then has the opportunity to require the cuts if they are to support it - or else let the govt shut down.

The Senate could not put anything on auto-pilot without the GOP also agreeing and they did."

It's not a reply if you don't address my points. I've already noted the Redstate link stating that only 70 House Republicans voted against the CR of September, 2012.

Some Republicans had to vote for all the CRs. Otherwise, they wouldn't have passed and there would have been a big ruckus over a government shutdown--and the Republicans certainly would have been blamed for being stubborn and unreasonable. But I'm not here to shill for the Republican Party. When you cannot make the case for cutting a deficit-plagued budget that has just been raised by over 20% for no good reason, you're pretty lame communicators and political tacticians--even accounting for the fact that the entire mainstream media would have tried to swamp their message like a giant tsunami.

"but this is what happens when neither side will agree on a budget and the GOP's budget makes Medicare a voucher program and repeals ObamaCare. Should anyone expect the Senate to agree to that? You HAVE TO WANT to find a compromise."

Now you've convinced me. Senate Democrats are extremely reasonable and willing to compromise. Especially Harry Reid. That's why they never made a counter-offer to the budgets sent over from the House. And why they just voted them down. The fact that a series of temporary CRs in lieu of a normal budget helps lock in higher rates of spending is merely coincidental. The unprecedented time period without a budget demonstrates the Senate's willingness to bargain in the same manner as previous Senates have. Right.

I've acknowledged the Republicans' contribution to this disaster, but your opinion seems to be that Democrats have nothing to do with these huge budgets and gigantic deficits. This strikes me as particularly odd given that the Dems don't want to cut ANYTHING, and (as previously described) the series of CRs was a strategy of Reid and Senate Dems to maintain inflated spending rates. Essentially, the GOP's blame in this is being too feckless to stop them (a handful of Repubs probably liked the 20% budget increase, but not most).

The impetus for my initial post was that the federal government was already WAY too large under Bush (with big deficits) and Obama/Dems only want to make it MUCH bigger, with humongous deficits. I meant to highlight the fact that a spending increase of over 20% was flying under the radar, basically going unnoticed--which is bizarre and outrageous. But you don't seem too concerned about big government getting even bigger, chewing up nearly 25% of GDP, confiscating that money from taxpayers, wasting tons of it and soon to cause a huge disaster because of repeated deficits of over $1.0 trillion. Your concern seems to be to pin half or most of the blame on Republicans.

"you're wrong about the stimulus. It's a one time expenditure spread over 2 years."

No need to mention this twice, guy. It's a misreading of my post. I've already addressed this. See previous reply.

"...both houses of Congress have to agree to what is in the CR."

Already stipulated. And Harry Reid is not able to pass CRs by himself. Everybody knows this stuff.

"...the money in the budget was not put there by Obama or more correctly put - was not advocated by Obama..."

Irrelevant.

"...and the GOP just went along with continuing spending as before."

They didn't just go along. They held their noses and voted YEA rather than cause a government shutdown.

"you are simply wrong about the stimulus guy. you need to google it. It has a specific dollar amount attributed to it. There is no stimulus in the CRs except to finish out what was not complete."

You simply misinterpreted my post, guy. You don't even need to google it. The CRs contained a huge bump in spending, continuing the 2009-2010 levels up to the present AS IF the stimulus plan were still going on. As I wrote, the CR "continued to pay for the overwhelming majority of THE 'one-time' stimulus plan." In effect, we are "repeatedly paying" for THE stimulus plan. Let's be absolutely clear. There was an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, but not an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2010 or an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2011 or of 2012. The CRs spend at an inflated rate. They do not run new stimulus projects.

Not that it really matters. The stimulus was a silly grab-bag of wasteful goverment spending that did little or nothing to boost the economy. The 20+% increase in subsequent budgets also are a silly grab-bag of wasteful government spending.

"Almost all of the spending in the budget was approved before Obama even took office."

Irrelevant.

"the problem is that the deficit was relatively small under Bush because the tax cuts were just starting to take effect and then the economy tanked and between those two things - revenues plummeted - making the deficit worse - and it continues - because tax revenues still have not recovered."

Now we're getting somewhere. Bush did it. I just googled it. Got 2,780,000 hits when I searched "bush's fault economy". Must be right; it's on the internet.

"The GOP does not want to specify the cuts - even though they are the guys who doubled the DOD spending and added Medicare Part D before Obama was even elected."

I get it. The fact that prior administrations overspent justifies doubling down, massively increasing spending and deficits. Maybe we should try for $2.0 trillion deficits. Do I hear $3.0 trillion, $4.0 trillion? Nothing bad can come of this. We just owe the money to ourselves (and China).

When the two houses fail - both parties - to agree on a budget, yes they have to go to CRs to do it but see here's the rub. If your are the GOP and you want cuts in the budget and the Dems will not agree then you have to go to the CR, the GOP then has the opportunity to require the cuts if they are to support it - or else let the govt shut down.

The Senate could not put anything on auto-pilot without the GOP also agreeing and they did.

The GOP could have voted against the CR - 70 of them did just that.

but this is what happens when neither side will agree on a budget and the GOP's budget makes Medicare a voucher program and repeals ObamaCare. Should anyone expect the Senate to agree to that? You HAVE TO WANT to find a compromise. You cannot try to force the Senate to swallow something they do not agree to. The Senate is simply not going to agree to any budget that changes Medicare to a voucher system or repeals ObamaCare. Any budget that comes from the house to the Senate has to be a budget that will gain enough Dem votes to get a 60 vote combined Dem/GOP majority. If you're not going to send a budget to the Senate that will gain that level of support then what is the purpose of sending something you know - will not be accepted? That's what forces the CRs... If a compromise budget had been sent to the Senate that could gain 60 votes, there would have been no need for the CR.

you're wrong about the stimulus. It's a one time expenditure spread over 2 years.

the GOP would never agree to extend it.

The stimulus went on for two years but it spreads across 3... but it did not continue. For instance, the 2% payroll reduction (that was stimulus) has gone back to the original level. The $400 make-work-pay credit that people got on their taxes for two years is not on this years taxes. There are no new stimulus projects but even if the POTUS wanted them - Congress would have to agree and they will not.

Except for the stimulus and a couple of things like unemployment benefits, the money in the budget was not put there by Obama or more correctly put - was not advocated by Obama and agreed to by Congress. Redstate called the CR "disastrous" precisely because in Redstate's opinion the GOP should have insisted on cuts in order to gain their support and the GOP just went along with continuing spending as before.

you are simply wrong about the stimulus guy. you need to google it. It has a specific dollar amount attributed to it. There is no stimulus in the CRs except to finish out what was not complete.

Almost all of the spending in the budget was approved before Obama even took office.

and the problem is that the deficit was relatively small under Bush because the tax cuts were just starting to take effect and then the economy tanked and between those two things - revenues plummeted - making the deficit worse - and it continues - because tax revenues still have not recovered.

The GOP does not want to specify the cuts - even though they are the guys who doubled the DOD spending and added Medicare Part D before Obama was even elected.

Now the GOP wants Obama to name the cuts but they don't want him to cut DOD even though their budget doubled from 2000 (and so did entitlements - in part because of the new Part D drug subsidies).

you may notice, for instance, the GOP does not name the entitlements cuts specifically. Even though they pushed through Medicare Part D - you don't hear any of them saying it was a mistake and should be repealed. They wanted to make all of Medicare a voucher system but if they stuck to that - they'd get voted out so now they want Obama to name the entitlement cuts instead.

My view is that if someone thinks we need to cut entitlements, then they need to step up and stick to their principles and name the cuts - no matter what Obama does or does not do.

If you believe cuts need to be made - then you get on your horse and shout the truth and get on with it. Hiding from the issue by saying Obama should name the cuts is just feckless hypocrisy but then it's also feckless hypocrisy to say we have a spending problem and you want to not approve extending the debt - when two months earlier you voted in favor of the CR.

According to http://www.thisnation.com/question/003.html:
"Generally, a CR funds agencies or programs for a month or two at the same funding level as the previous year."

I don't know if the law requires or encourages CRs to maintain current spending levels, but clearly there are powerful reasons why this ends up as the default position. Firstly: after budget negotiations have failed, there is little time to do anything else. Secondly, significant budget fluctuations via a series of CRs would cause serious disruptions to government operations. Finally, anyone who tried to make significant, last-minute changes to the budget would be portrayed as unreasonable and obstinate, holding government operations hostage to advance his own agenda. Thus I strongly suspect that, practically speaking, it is extremely difficult to make a CR to do other than basically continue spending at current levels.

Therefore, when the Senate votes down (or won't consider) all budgets sent over by the House--and refuses to make a counter-offer of its own--they force CRs to happen, which in turn maintains current spending levels. Thus, the characterization of Reid and Senate Democrats as "putting spending on autopilot" or "increasing the baseline" are fair ones. This is the tactic they've used to maintain most of 2009's inflated stimulus-plan spending level.

Although Redstate did call the CR "disastrous," they failed to mention that it continued to pay for the overwhelming majority of the "one-time" stimulus plan. And I have heard very little of this from conservative or libertarian commentators. This is still a mystery to me given how outrageous it to increase spending by over 20% with so little discussion or notice, repeatedly paying for most of a stimulus that was sold as an "emergency, one-time" program.

and why would you vote to continue spending at the original debt-inducing rate and then a couple of months later vote against increasing the debt limit? what kind of sense does that make?