Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Since "according to the Constitution, spending bills have to pass the house" and the spending bills are to fund the laws passed...the House isn't doing it's job if it's not allocating money for what it passed.
Since "according to the Constitution, spending bills have to pass the house" and the spending bills are to fund the laws passed...the House isn't doing it's job if it's not allocating money for what it passed.
It's as simple as that...even you should be able to understand it. But of course, that's not the question you're asking...feel free to keep up the charade.
Since "according to the Constitution, spending bills have to pass the house" and the spending bills are to fund the laws passed...the House isn't doing it's job if it's not allocating money for what it passed.
This is where you knelt down and sucked the grape kool aid. The current House has to pass nothing that prior congresses instructed it to pass. that would in fact be a complete dereliction of duty. Nancy Pelosi has one vote. Today. That she was in congress in prior congresses is ...
... wait for it ...
... irrelevant.
BTW, W has no vote today either. See you next year, I'm guessing you'll be as ignorant as you are now.
Since "according to the Constitution, spending bills have to pass the house" and the spending bills are to fund the laws passed...the House isn't doing it's job if it's not allocating money for what it passed.
This is where you knelt down and sucked the grape kool aid. The current House has to pass nothing that prior congresses instructed it to pass. that would in fact be a complete dereliction of duty. Nancy Pelosi has one vote. Today. That she was in congress in prior congresses is ...
... wait for it ...
... irrelevant.
BTW, W has no vote today either. See you next year, I'm guessing you'll be as ignorant as you are now.
Previous congresses leave no instructions... You're funny.
What they do is pass bills that the President signs into laws. Again, watch the video...you seem not to know much about Congress and it's role.
So what you're saying is that if THIS House doesn't think we should have an FAA, they can just choose not to fund it and close the agency even though it was established by a law and they could reverse the Louisiana Purchase and return it to France...
Really?
One really has to wonder why libertarians have a zero impact on natioinal politics. Not really.
I think it's been answered ad nausem, and by conservatives at the Wall St. J., Kasich, Scarborough, King ..... the House shut down the government because Obama wouldn't agree to halt obamacare. A clean CR would pass the House and Senate.
There probably will be some spending negotiations over general spending and revenue vis a vis the debt ceiling. The CR is pretty much over ... aside from Cruz offering his sword to Reid.
And the House doesn't need to pass the CR? I hadn't previously been aware of that, thanks for clearing it up. So how does it work then? The Senate passes it and just sends it to Obama?
As usual you miss the point completely.
True, I don't do well getting spin. Though to be more precise I grasp it fine, I just ignore it.
Kaz wrote: "Why does the House have no say on the budget? I keep asking liberals this and not getting an answer."
Out right Kaz fabrication. Sane mainstream Republicans have told you repeatedly the black man won (twice), Congress approved and the Senate opined on Obamacare.
You don't get to go back and revisit your loss. This is over.
Kaz wrote: "Why does the House have no say on the budget? I keep asking liberals this and not getting an answer."
Out right Kaz fabrication. Sane mainstream Republicans have told you repeatedly the black man won (twice), Congress approved and the Senate opined on Obamacare.
You don't get to go back and revisit your loss. This is over.
Kaz's real question is, why can't the House have unfettered veto power over all matters budgetary,
because the House is Republican right now and I'd like that.
It's one of more example of how the far right can't accept the past, present, and future reality of their minority status,
but instead envision some sort of upside down world where such a minority can run the country.
As usual you miss the point completely.
True, I don't do well getting spin. Though to be more precise I grasp it fine, I just ignore it.
Do you at least understand what mandatory spending is?
Haven't I asked you this question before?
Kaz wrote: "Why does the House have no say on the budget? I keep asking liberals this and not getting an answer."
Out right Kaz fabrication. Sane mainstream Republicans have told you repeatedly the black man won (twice), Congress approved and the Senate opined on Obamacare.
You don't get to go back and revisit your loss. This is over.
Kaz's real question is, why can't the House have unfettered veto power over all matters budgetary,
because the House is Republican right now and I'd like that.
It's one of more example of how the far right can't accept the past, present, and future reality of their minority status,
but instead envision some sort of upside down world where such a minority can run the country.
Indeed. Were it the Progressive Caucus (in a Democratic House with a Republican Senate and President) holding the country hostage to get the People's Budget passed, they'd be singing quite the different tune.
Kaz's real question is, why can't the House have unfettered veto power over all matters budgetary,
because the House is Republican right now and I'd like that.
It's one of more example of how the far right can't accept the past, present, and future reality of their minority status,
but instead envision some sort of upside down world where such a minority can run the country.
Indeed. Were it the Progressive Caucus (in a Democratic House with a Republican Senate and President) holding the country hostage to get the People's Budget passed, they'd be singing quite the different tune.
So when Harry Reid tables bills coming over from the House THAT isn't holding the country "hostage" but when the present House won't rubber stamp spending for programs that a PRIOR session of Congress passed it is? Interesting concept...
Indeed. Were it the Progressive Caucus (in a Democratic House with a Republican Senate and President) holding the country hostage to get the People's Budget passed, they'd be singing quite the different tune.
So when Harry Reid tables bills coming over from the House THAT isn't holding the country "hostage" but when the present House won't rubber stamp spending for programs that a PRIOR session of Congress passed it is? Interesting concept...
It's the same thing.
But again, is there a statute of limitations on what the House should ratify because it's already law or do we have to re-legislate the Lend Lease agreement, stamp act, Louisiana Purchase, SEC act, clean water act, etc...
