I dunno. When considering hiring someone to do a job, it seems entirely appropriate to ask how they performed their previous job even if that old job isn’t exactly the same as the prospective job.
Productiveness in a legislator is not a virtue. BTW, why wouldn’t the budget he authored be considered a rather important bill? He passed two of those. Was his name not on them or were they not considered bills?
The federal budget is subject to its own procedures, which are set by law. The budget doesn’t actually originate in Congress; the President submits a budget recommendation to Congress and then Congress acts on it. The budget committees make whatever changes they wish to the President’s proposed budget (which can obviously be the equivalent of rewriting the entire thing) and then issue their recommendation to Congress, which will then issue a non-binding concurrent resolution. It appears that these resolutions are legally viewed as a collective act and aren’t considered to be sponsored by any individual member. Congress then takes the resolutions and enacts them into law through a series of appropriation bills, which actually get the money moving.
If you feel legislative productiveness is not a virtue, I would assume this process meets with your approval.
Just pointing out that Ryan has been THE leading guy on the budget for the past two years. That’s why he vaulted to the top of the Republican heap over a lot of much more senior figures.
And, of course, his budget proposals have been laughed at by everyone with half a brain.
Oh. So now how one votes, or sponsors legislation, or gets elected to executive offices, or other stuff like that, no longer counts as the be-all and end-all of achievement? Now, if you have ideas that politicians are impressed by, THAT can be considered leadership qualities? Now I get it.
hmmm, how many votes did the President’s budget proposals get?
Um, it’s more than ideas, his budgets passed the House. Which is more than we can say for the President’s budgets.
He’s the head of the Budget Committee. His budgets come out of there and get passed by the full House. Not crediting him with that budget is not only pure nuttery, it also contradicts the main Dem talking points, which is that his budget is dangerous and extreme.
But if Democrats would prefer to argue that he’s a non-entity, whatever.
No shit, Sherlock. When the Republicans vowed Jan 20, 2009 to NEVER give him a SINGLE VOTE for ANYTHING, does it really fucking surprise you that the Republican-controlled House wouldn’t pass an Obama budget?
Stats on member-sponsored bills don’t mean squat to me. Sponsoring bills is for showhorses, committees are where real work gets done. Any member can have significant influence on a Congress without sponsoring any bills.
Why hasn’t the Senate passed the President’s budget? It can’t be filibustered, so it only takes 50 votes.
Oh yeah, NOT ONE Democrat supports the President’s budget. Two years in a row.
That point has been eviscerated several times already. Repeating it to the same people who pointed out such things as, say, the parliamentary trick of introducing a draft budget that the president had already announced was being superseded with the next iteration (all budgets are/have been iterative processes), doesn’t make the talking point any less false. It does make it seem as if you either don’t understand the rather simple context, don’t read or consider any other posts, or recognize the inherent emptiness of your point but repeat it anyway with full knowledge that it is a falsehood, but one that a casual reader my be gullible enough to believe. There is a wide array of legitimate, severe fiscal and other criticisms of Obama. Harping on such an easily pierced inanity severely devalues your overall contributions.
As for Ryan, it’s somewhat similar. There are many areas of substance in which to take strong disagreement. How successful someone has been in getting things proposed or passed is not wholly irrelevant, but is of much greater importance during a primary. The criticism that he’ll be an ineffective Vice President is fairly ineffective. Again, not totally devoid of meaning, but very far down on the scale of things that weigh on the choice. As mentioned upthread, what he voted on, how he voted, what he advocated, etc. is much more illuminating than whether he was a prolific legislature (and as** jasg** noted, consistent with small government).
Nothing stops Harry Reid from introducing the President’s budget for a vote. So again, ZERO votes for the President’s budget. You think the fact that Democrats dont even want to hold a vote on it makes it look better?
The specific and general point has been shut down in other threads; it’s a hijack here. Further, given that no amount of basic explanation seems to eke past your ardent belief in such fatuity, it’s pointless to keep repeating the same thing.
All I ask is that the guy who said Ryan’s budgets are laughed at be shown to be laughably wrong himself. Ryan’s budget passed the House. No other budget proposal has done as well. Or even come close.
Some would likely argue that has more to do with the Tea Party’s grip on John Boehner’s testicles than their grip on reality.
What’s the difference?
Using needlenose pliers, no doubt.
Certainly being effective at a job is important. We can easily agree on that. I just don’t think the most important skills for Congress necessarily carry over to the White House. You shoudn’t assume that a below average job performance in the House means Ryan, or anyone else for that matter, would be a bad VP. As to the relative importance of effectiveness vs. principle, for someone who is a step away from the presidency, it is overwhelmingly more important on where a he stands on the issues, not whether or not he could get a bill passed. Since the executive branch tries to set the agenda, which is idea based, that is what I would look to.
The VP’s job is not to enact legislation. I make this statement in the context of the VP having to take over the duties of the president.
ETA: added Robot Arm’s quote.
Do you have to threadshit on every single discussion anybody has about anything related to the election to bring up, yet again, a debate about the President’s budget? Can you confine your one-trick-ponyness to perhaps one meta-discussion on the subject matter and then focus your energies on discussing the topic of the thread itself???