Why does the House have no say on the budget?

[kaz]

The ACA is a mandatory spending law -- not discretionary.

Now do you understand why the GOP is trying to rewrite the law without a vote, without winning the Senate, without winning the WH.

They want a do-over. And when we said no, they kicked the ball over the fence. Fucking children.

DO you?

I know what liberals are saying, the problem is I can't find that forced funding claim you all keep making in the Constitution. Where is that?

Ok, by the numbers:

1. Mandatory spending is spending required by law. What is your confusion about that?

I asked where it says that in the Constitution, what is your confusion about that?

It does say how budgets are passed though, and the Republicans are following that.

 

[Seawytch]

You must have been a fun kid. Well, he did it first, she did it first, they were mean, they did that, it's not my fault, nothing's my fault! Obama & Reid are the ones who are saying they won't negotiate and the government is shut down. Whatever has happened up to now, the REPUBLICAN house has to pass a bill and it's your guys sitting on the ball. Pointing fingers while being a core Obama skill doesn't change that fact.

OK, so let's say the Republicans are the meanie poopy pants you say they are and this is all their fault. So what's the next step after Republicans had their chance, now you won't negotiate?

First? How about AT ALL? What part of "The GOP engineered the shutdown" don't you understand? The GOP had the opportunity since April to sit down and start negotiating a budget. They didn't. Why? Because they wanted to use the threat of a shutdown to force the president into repealing his signature legislation. It's not a secret. They telegraphed their intentions back then.

It's the Republicans that are running around pointing fingers at everyone except who is responsible...the Republicans.

A Republican said it "Lemmings in suicide vests"

You just repeated the point before. Your behavior is the Republican's fault. They made you do it. And it doesn't answer the question. OK, you're mad at them. So now you're sitting on the ball and saying it's their fault. So what's the next step?

The next step is the GOP passing the clean CR that the Boehner agreed to.

 

[Jarhead]

First? How about AT ALL? What part of "The GOP engineered the shutdown" don't you understand? The GOP had the opportunity since April to sit down and start negotiating a budget. They didn't. Why? Because they wanted to use the threat of a shutdown to force the president into repealing his signature legislation. It's not a secret. They telegraphed their intentions back then.

It's the Republicans that are running around pointing fingers at everyone except who is responsible...the Republicans.

A Republican said it "Lemmings in suicide vests"

You just repeated the point before. Your behavior is the Republican's fault. They made you do it. And it doesn't answer the question. OK, you're mad at them. So now you're sitting on the ball and saying it's their fault. So what's the next step?

The next step is the GOP passing the clean CR that the Boehner agreed to.

And if he doesn't...and it appears he wont....

What is the NEXT step?

(the question isn't "what is the next step you prefer"...the question is "what is the next step that will need to happen")

 

[edthecynic]

Boehner with Stephanopoulos...

BOEHNER: It's about having a conversation. I gave the Senate majority leader some advice at the White House about how to proceed. I gave him some advice over a week ago about how to avert this. And yet they refuse to do it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But Mr. Speaker, he says -- and he said it publicly on many occasions, that you came to him back in July and offered to pass a clean government funding resolution, no Obamacare amendments, that was $70 billion below what the Senate wanted. They accepted it. And now, you've reneged on that offer.

BOEHNER: No, clearly there was a conversation about doing this.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Several conversations.

BOEHNER: Several. But--

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you offered a clean resolution.

BOEHNER: But I and my members decided the threat of Obamacare and what was happening was so important that it was time for us to take a stand. And we took a stand.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Did you decide it or was it decided for you?

And that's is a perfect example of why you can't "negotiate" with worthless lying GOP scum, they can ALWAYS rationalize any excuse for reneging and that settles it!!

 

[edthecynic]

I know what liberals are saying, the problem is I can't find that forced funding claim you all keep making in the Constitution. Where is that?

Ok, by the numbers:

1. Mandatory spending is spending required by law. What is your confusion about that?

I asked where it says that in the Constitution, what is your confusion about that?

It does say how budgets are passed though, and the Republicans are following that.

The Constitution also say the Senate can amend the budget, and the Dems followed that!

 

[bendog]

The thread should be archived for irony. The answer to Kaz's OP .... because the TPM pissed it away.

 

[Contumacious]

its pretty stupid to say that the House has no say on the budget.

Its pretty stupid to say that Obama Hellcare is Constitutional even though it ORIGINATED in the Senate and there it was submitted secretly . But you say it anyway.

.

.

 

[bendog]

reality is your stupidity.

 

[kaz]

First? How about AT ALL? What part of "The GOP engineered the shutdown" don't you understand? The GOP had the opportunity since April to sit down and start negotiating a budget. They didn't. Why? Because they wanted to use the threat of a shutdown to force the president into repealing his signature legislation. It's not a secret. They telegraphed their intentions back then.

It's the Republicans that are running around pointing fingers at everyone except who is responsible...the Republicans.

A Republican said it "Lemmings in suicide vests"

You just repeated the point before. Your behavior is the Republican's fault. They made you do it. And it doesn't answer the question. OK, you're mad at them. So now you're sitting on the ball and saying it's their fault. So what's the next step?

The next step is the GOP passing the clean CR that the Boehner agreed to.

Which goes back to the question in the op...

 

[kaz]

And that's is a perfect example of why you can't "negotiate" with worthless lying GOP scum, they can ALWAYS rationalize any excuse for reneging and that settles it!!

And Republicans couldn't negotiate with this? Wow, you really showed how they screwed the pooch on this...

 

[NYcarbineer]

its pretty stupid to say that the House has no say on the budget.

Its pretty stupid to say that Obama Hellcare is Constitutional even though it ORIGINATED in the Senate and there it was submitted secretly . But you say it anyway.

.

.

Here:

Introduced in the House as HR 3590, 9/17/09

Bill Summary & Status - 111th Congress (2009 - 2010) - H.R.3590 - Major Congressional Actions - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

 

[bendog]

its pretty stupid to say that the House has no say on the budget.

Its pretty stupid to say that Obama Hellcare is Constitutional even though it ORIGINATED in the Senate and there it was submitted secretly . But you say it anyway.

.

.

Here:

Introduced in the House as HR 3590, 9/17/09

Bill Summary & Status - 111th Congress (2009 - 2010) - H.R.3590 - Major Congressional Actions - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

yes, and even Heritage indicates the falsity of his views, but it does not dissuage him in the least. It is not worth even responding to.
Guide to the Constitution

 

[NYcarbineer]

I know what liberals are saying, the problem is I can't find that forced funding claim you all keep making in the Constitution. Where is that?

Ok, by the numbers:

1. Mandatory spending is spending required by law. What is your confusion about that?

I asked where it says that in the Constitution, what is your confusion about that?

It does say how budgets are passed though, and the Republicans are following that.

Explain that. Is it your claim that a law is unconstitutional if it appropriates the cost of law within the law itself?

Because that is what creates mandatory spending...

 

[g5000]

If we eliminated every last tax expenditure, we would be running a surplus right now. And we would be able to lower tax rates!

But watch a Republican swallow his tongue if you suggest such a thing. "Fiscally responsible Republican" is an oxymoron.

Can you translate your post from babble to English?

I'm sorry. I did not know you were too ignorant to know what a tax expenditure is.

A mortgage interest tax deduction is an example of a tax expenditure. As is a child tax credit. Subsidies, deductions, loopholes, credits; these are all different names for tax expenditures. All those social engineering mechanisms your government puts in the tax code to get you to buy the right products and raise more consumers.

When you take advantage of one of these social engineering expenditures, someone else has to pay for it, or else the government has to borrow money from China to pay for it.

This means people earning identical incomes are paying radically different amounts of taxes. This means someone is carrying you on their back when you take a tax deduction. This means the government gets deeper in debt when you take a tax deduction.

A person who does not buy a house is punished with higher taxes. The government has established a housing mandate, and you are given a tax penalty if you don't buy a house.

If you don't buy the right kind of refrigerator, you are given a tax penalty. Someone paid your Congressman a lot of campaign cash to put that tax penalty in the tax code.

And there is a huge lobby which pays a lot of Congressmen to keep the housing mandate in the tax code.

You have been brainwashed by both the GOP and the Democratic Party into believing the "free" market would implode if it was not propped up by all these thousands upon thousands of government crutches.

So it was not a big leap for the government to start penalizing you for not buying health insurance.



All of this bribery being paid by special interests to Congressional campaign coffers results in taxpayers being saddled with $1.4 trillion a year in tax expenditures, and this system exists for the sole purpose of keeping 535 people employed. That $1.4 trillion far exceeds our current deficit. So it is very easy to see that without these boondoggles, we would be running a surplus and could actually lower tax rates. For everyone.

And that's without cutting a single penny from the budget!




But just watch a Republican splutter and choke and work hard to rationalize the mortgage interest deduction. They use the exact same rationale as someone rationalizing food stamps or "ObamaPhones". Identical.

The same people who erroneously blame the CRA for the housing bubble are perfectly okay with the mortage interest deduction crutch and will defend it to the death! Amazing.

You are sucking on the government tit just as much as anyone else. Our $17 trillion national debt is as much your fault as anyone else.

Congress has been adding tax expenditures to the tax code at the rate of one per day for over a decade. There is a neverending line of special interests bribing them to do so.

Just so the 535 members can stay employed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. Mandatory spending is created when a law has the appropriation for the cost of the law

included in the law itself.

2. Discretionary spending occurs as a result of a law being passed that authorizes spending for its cost,

but doesn't appropriate that spending. The appropriation has to occur via other, separate legislation.

(Feel free to tell me where I'm wrong about that before I make my point related to it.)

So, without objection, here's my point:

1. The House Republicans could not get the votes to defund Obamacare because it is funded in the law itself, and thus the law itself had to be changed in order to effect such defunding.

In short, they lost that legislative battle. However,

2. ...the House Republicans could effectively defund unrelated discretionary programs, because they require an affirmative legislative action periodically to get their funding,

and all the House Republicans had to do was not act to fund them.

That is how, figuratively speaking, the hostage taking occurred. Discretionary spending, unrelated to Obamacare, could be held hostage, simply by inaction,

in what the House Republicans believed was a good scheme to overturn the results of the battle they lost in 1 above.

3. What they did was not illegal, technically, but it was slimy, sleazy, and weasely, and as public opinion has borne out,

it was not a good plan, because not everything that is technically legal fares well in the court of the People,

and we still are, at least theoretically, a government of the People.

In short, the GOP House members tried to game the system, and they lost. At least it appears at this point that they lost.

 

[candycorn]

I keep asking liberals this and not getting an answer. You say over and over that Obama and Reid don't have to negotiate, the minority Republicans have no say. But the Republicans are the majority in the House, and according to the Constitution, spending bills have to pass the House.

So how is it that when Obama/Reid won't negotiate, it's the Republicans who have no say and are the ones shutting down government? Stop dodging and answer the question.

If you pass a bill that becomes law, you fund the law. If you overturn a law, you don't have to fund it.

Wow, the Republicans are being unconstitutional. That sucks. I do have a question. Then why do they have to vote on the funding in this year's budget if they are required to fund it? Can you show me in the Constitution where Republicans are forced to vote to spend money? I can't find that part.

Republicans aren't mentioned in the Constitution.

Congress funds the government. The ACA was passed by the House (made up of Republicans and Democrats and Independents) and the Senate (made up of Republicans and Democrats and Independents). This is Government 101.

This may help you understand it...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0]I'm Just a Bill (Schoolhouse Rock!) - YouTube[/ame]

Anyway; Congress speaks as one voice legislatively. Once they do, the President can sign or veto the bill. Obama signed this one. Hence; it's a law.

I guess your "question" is why THIS House has to fund anything the last Congress passed and was signed into law by the President. Is that basically what you're asking kid?

 

[kaz]

Ok, by the numbers:

1. Mandatory spending is spending required by law. What is your confusion about that?

I asked where it says that in the Constitution, what is your confusion about that?

It does say how budgets are passed though, and the Republicans are following that.

Explain that. Is it your claim that a law is unconstitutional if it appropriates the cost of law within the law itself?

That makes no sense in terms of what I said.

Because that is what creates mandatory spending...

You're getting dizzy from your spin.

The Constitution says that to pass a budget, it must pass both Houses with a signature from the President, or if the President vetoes it must be passed with 2/3 vote in both Houses.

Nowhere does it say that prior Congresses get a vote in this year's budget. They aren't repealing the law, they are just not spending money.

So without spinning so you don't get dizzy again, the Constitution DOES say the current congress gets to vote on THIS year's budget. It does not say they have to spend money funding that which prior congresses told them to spend.

So, you have no basis to say the Republicans have to spend money. It doesn't matter what prior congresses say they have to spend. If they are required to spend the money, why are they voting at all?

 

[Contumacious]

its pretty stupid to say that the House has no say on the budget.

Its pretty stupid to say that Obama Hellcare is Constitutional even though it ORIGINATED in the Senate and there it was submitted secretly . But you say it anyway.

.

.

Here:

Introduced in the House as HR 3590, 9/17/09

Bill Summary & Status - 111th Congress (2009 - 2010) - H.R.3590 - Major Congressional Actions - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

HR 3590


This is the Senate's health care bill. The bill started off with text regarding an unrelated matter but the Senate is co-opted this bill as a vehicle for passage of their reform and changed the text in whole to the health care bill. They do this because the Constitution requires all revenue bills to start in the House, and their health reform plan involves revenue. So they have chosen to work off of a bill that started in the House, even if that bill is unrelated


.

 

[bendog]

1. Mandatory spending is created when a law has the appropriation for the cost of the law

included in the law itself.

2. Discretionary spending occurs as a result of a law being passed that authorizes spending for its cost,

but doesn't appropriate that spending. The appropriation has to occur via other, separate legislation.

(Feel free to tell me where I'm wrong about that before I make my point related to it.)

So, without objection, here's my point:

1. The House Republicans could not get the votes to defund Obamacare because it is funded in the law itself, and thus the law itself had to be changed in order to effect such defunding.

In short, they lost that legislative battle. However,

2. ...the House Republicans could effectively defund unrelated discretionary programs, because they require an affirmative legislative action periodically to get their funding,

and all the House Republicans had to do was not act to fund them.

That is how, figuratively speaking, the hostage taking occurred. Discretionary spending, unrelated to Obamacare, could be held hostage, simply by inaction,

in what the House Republicans believed was a good scheme to overturn the results of the battle they lost in 1 above.

3. What they did was not illegal, technically, but it was slimy, sleazy, and weasely, and as public opinion has borne out,

it was not a good plan, because not everything that is technically legal fares well in the court of the People,

and we still are, at least theoretically, a government of the People.

In short, the GOP House members tried to game the system, and they lost. At least it appears at this point that they lost.

Yes, but wasn't Obamacare crafted as mandatory spending inorder to prevent just the shannaigans the TP tried?

That's why I thought the adults tried to tell the TP to focus instead on deficit reduction, but were ignored.

 

[g5000]

If you pass a bill that becomes law, you fund the law. If you overturn a law, you don't have to fund it.

Wow, the Republicans are being unconstitutional. That sucks. I do have a question. Then why do they have to vote on the funding in this year's budget if they are required to fund it? Can you show me in the Constitution where Republicans are forced to vote to spend money? I can't find that part.

Republicans aren't mentioned in the Constitution.

Congress funds the government. The ACA was passed by the House (made up of Republicans and Democrats and Independents) and the Senate (made up of Republicans and Democrats and Independents). This is Government 101.

This may help you understand it...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0]I'm Just a Bill (Schoolhouse Rock!) - YouTube[/ame]

Anyway; Congress speaks as one voice legislatively. Once they do, the President can sign or veto the bill. Obama signed this one. Hence; it's a law.

I guess your "question" is why THIS House has to fund anything the last Congress passed and was signed into law by the President. Is that basically what you're asking kid?

We need to defund every spending program every Congress has ever passed. Yeah! Let's dismantle ALL of them.

Your idiotic obtuseness reminds me of this cartoon: