creating a straw man solely in order to knock it over. But I need to do a little checking first.

and it is controlled by the Republicans? Just guessing.

Bad ones... But something.

The real reason is simple. Any budget has good things and things that can be targeted for attack. Why would we pass something that we know can't ever become law and will only become the subject of attacks? A Democratic budget would necessarily raise taxes and spending. How would that be spun in November?

There is an awful lot of wrong information on this thread.

Normally, the House passes a budget. The Senate passes a very different budget.

A conference committee works up a compromise that is then voted on and passed by each house. Then the President signs it.

Often the budgets each house passes are not taken too seriously because both sides know the real plan will be written in the Conference Committee anyway.

So what's been different the last few years?

Just like Fbaggins said.

The House passed their budget, the Ryan budget.

They have been roundly criticized for the decisions they made in the budget.

The Senate has made no attempt to pass one.

Why?

They don't want to pass one and get roundly criticized for whatever decisions they will have to make. Better to just criticize the one the other guys passed.

They could pass one if they felt like it. Budget bills only require 51 votes as they can't be filibustered.

We'll see if Harry Reid's strategy works politically.

I guess you could call it the audacity of cowardice.

The president does not sign or veto.

Read up about them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budget

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget
Passed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_federal_budget
Passed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget
George Bush's - please note

revenue MUST originate in the House of Representatives:

[quote]United States Constitution

Article I.

Section 7.

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.[/quote]

People need to go back to civics class.

and then the Conference Committee would come up with a compromise plan for each house to vote on again -- you mean all those years, the senate was breaking the law?

Who knew?

The budget bill can be amended and acted upon as any other bill once the House submits it. Senate is free to change things prior to a conference committee.

I knew it had something to do with the House.

Both the Senate and House are to pass budgets.

Federal Budget Process
Step 1: President’s Budget Request
The budget process begins with the president’s submission to Congress of the administration’s proposed budget for the coming fiscal year, which begins on October 1. The budget must be submitted by the first Monday in February. The president’s proposal does not have the force of law, but includes detailed spending levels for all programs. Though only input to the budget process, it generally sets the tone for the process in three ways:
It reveals the president’s beliefs about how much money the federal government should spend (not only in the coming fiscal year, but also in the following five years or more) as well as how much it should tax.
It sets the president’s priorities for spending, such as how the president would like to fund issues including education, defense, and health.
It suggests changes to spending and tax policies.
The president’s proposal is formally written up by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and it usually includes thousands of pages of supporting information, such as historical tables of past budget statistics.

Next comes the senate proposing and passing a budget.

Then the Conference Committee goes to work ironing out the differences.

Except the senate hasn't done one for a few years now.

You cannot get 60 members of the Senate to agree the sky is blue, much less anything else.

These are the automatic cuts that will kick in later this year if nothing is agreed upon. Both sides signed off on this legislation but the Repubs are saying they will not abide by their agreement because they do not want to cut defense spending.
---------------------

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/01/congress-s-budget-delay-is-no-big-deal.html

<snip>
But outside Washington spin rooms, a question emerges: is a 1,000-day lag since the last budget such a terrible thing?

No, say several policy and governance analysts consulted by The Daily Beast. Since 2009, Congress has funded itself on a series of continuing resolutions (CRs), pieces of legislation affirming current spending levels. Congress also can pass new spending bills at any time, or drain a program’s budget if it’s underperforming, which legislators occasionally do. CRs don't include the enforcement bite of a formal budget, but that naunce might come across as inside Washington baseball. “I can’t imagine who [outside of Washington] would be truly upset about this,” says Stephen Hess, a governance analyst with the Brookings Institution. “[Continuing resolutions] ultimately result in a budget, just not a new budget. I don’t see it as a question worth going to the barricades for.”

<snip>
What irks Republicans so much is that current spending levels are unsustainable, adding about $1 trillion to the national debt each year. The budget needs to be cut, they say, and without a new budget up for debate, Republicans have little power to slash programs and agencies they dislike. (Yet Hess notes a hidden benefit of CRs for Republicans: no new budget means that spending is unlikely to go up dramatically, either.)

<snip>
To defend against the GOP attacks, Democrats point to spending caps that both chambers, and both parties, agreed to in August, including a spending reduction measure known as the Budget Control Act. Hoping to quell the media storm, the White House also notes that Obama will submit a new budget proposal on Feb. 13. Afterward, Senate Democrats will have an opportunity to debate it.

not passed a budget for three years, but he ignores a salient fact you might throw in his face:

"For fiscal 1999, 2005 and 2007, the House and Senate failed to reconcile their different bills and pass a compromise measure. In these latter three cases, the Republicans were in the majority in both chambers of Congress."

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2012/apr/26/john-boehner/john-boehner-says-senate-dems-havent-passed-budget/

Question to your brother: Why didn't the Repigs pass a reconciled budget the three years when Repigs controlled both houses of Congress? Answer: they're demagogic hypocritical pieces of shit, just like your brother.

Don't know your brother, so please take use of 'Repig' under advisement.

Since the answer to that for anybody who actually, you know, follows the Senate is a resounding "not only no but FUCK ASS NO!!!", it's pretty clear why the Senate hasn't passed shit.

It is in the constitution

In fact, they passed their budget.

Now it's the senate's turn.

You cannot get 60 Senators to agree the sky is blue, much less anything else.

Republican Claims That the Senate Has Not Passed a Budget Are WRONG

(Prepared by Majority Staff, Senate Budget Committee)

It is wrong to assert that there is no budget. The Budget Control Act enacted in August contained the budget for this year. It was passed by both the House and Senate, signed by the President, and enacted into law.

The Budget Control Act achieved all of the essential elements of a traditional budget – setting discretionary caps, providing enforcement mechanisms, and creating a process for addressing entitlement spending and revenues.

In many ways, the Budget Control Act was even more extensive than a traditional budget:

It has the force of law, unlike a budget resolution that is not signed by the President.
It set discretionary caps for 10 years, instead of the one year normally set in a budget resolution.
It provided enforcement mechanisms, including a two-year “deemer,” allowing budget points of order to be enforced.
And it addressed entitlement spending and revenues by creating the “Super Committee,” which was given explicit authority to
reform entitlements and the tax code. The Super Committee process represented an enhanced version of the reconciliation
process that can be established under a budget resolution. And it was further backed up with a $1.2 trillion sequester.


http://democrats.senate.gov/2012/01/24/fact-sheet-responding-to-republican-no-budget-claims/

They passed the Budget Control Act which means there is no need at present to pass a budget bill every year.

It's as simple as that.

A simple majority vote is all that is required, with the VP standing in to break a tie. The filibuster only exists because the Senate is allowed to set its own rules at the beginning of every new session (2 years) and they have kept it in place. It used to have a valid reason for existing (think Strom Thurmond here), but it's time has expired. Now all the GOP has to do is threaten it but they haven't done it in its intended sense in decades. Yeah, I'm pissed.

It only takes 51 votes to pass a budget.

He could pass it with 51 Democratic votes and defeat any Repub amendments with 51 Democratic votes.

Then the real bargaining would start behind closed doors at the Conference Committee.

Why are people making excuses for him.

It's a political strategy. Maybe a brilliant one.

They only take 51 votes to pass.

of Representatives. There is no good reason the Senate cannot modify a bill that comes to it by amendment.

is a lawyer. . damn. . . is he really that dumb that he didn't know the answer?