Why does the House have no say on the budget?

[kaz]

What's particularly disingenuous about all this is that if Republicans had passed in prior congresses say a law that Congress had to spend money discouraging women from getting abortions or funding overseas military ventures, the liberals would be arguing they can defund anything they want. Everybody knows that. The actual issue of funding mandates is irrelevant to them, it's the transactional argument to get their way on this transactional issue.

Liberalism is a transactional ideology. Everything they ever argue, they contradict arguing something else. That's what you get when you have ideologues. Unfortunately while liberals are ideologues, Republicans have no real views on anything. That's why liberals are dominating. They're nuts, but it works.

 

[kaz]

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

Actually everyone but government does that, it's zero based budgeting. There should be no such thing as anything else. Our budget deficits would be so much lower.

 

[bendog]

So, is he saying mandatory spending can be withheld w/o repealing the underlying law(s) requiring the govt do something?

Or, is he saying the originations clause prevents the senate from subsituting its own language into a bill, passing it, and sending that change back to the House?

Or, is he saying both?

 

[g5000]

What's particularly disingenuous about all this is that if Republicans had passed in prior congresses say a law that Congress had to spend money discouraging women from getting abortions or funding overseas military ventures, the liberals would be arguing they can defund anything they want. Everybody knows that. The actual issue of funding mandates is irrelevant to them, it's the transactional argument to get their way on this transactional issue.

The Democrats would submit a bill to repeal such an anti-abortion Act, true. But you have no evidence they would shut down the government and hold their breath until they turn blue if the repeal failed 40 times.

 

[kaz]

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

When I called your post babble, that does not mean I don't know what individual terms mean, it means I don't know what you are saying when you put them together. I'm not sure how out of the entire post you fixated on that term either. Then again, you don't either.

If you read your post slowly and think about it, it doesn't make sense. Since you wiffed on the first point, I assumed the rest of your rant was irrelevant and didn't read it.

 

[kaz]

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.

So you actually typed that in, sat back and read it, confirmed it makes sense to you, and hit enter? You read it and think that was what my question meant?

Fascinating...

 

[NYcarbineer]

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


.

That's irrelevant. To be precise, that's irrelevant even though I have no idea what you're trying to say.

If HR 3590 was introduced in the House, it was introduced in the House. Period.

 

[kaz]

What's particularly disingenuous about all this is that if Republicans had passed in prior congresses say a law that Congress had to spend money discouraging women from getting abortions or funding overseas military ventures, the liberals would be arguing they can defund anything they want. Everybody knows that. The actual issue of funding mandates is irrelevant to them, it's the transactional argument to get their way on this transactional issue.

The Democrats would submit a bill to repeal such an anti-abortion Act, true. But you have no evidence they would shut down the government and hold their breath until they turn blue if the repeal failed 40 times.

Actually I do, it's the Democrats who stopped the game and are sitting on the ball.

I also have that I have never known Democrats to act any other way in the decades I have followed politics. Never do you do anything that isn't self serving out of principle.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's particularly disingenuous about all this is that if Republicans had passed in prior congresses say a law that Congress had to spend money discouraging women from getting abortions or funding overseas military ventures, the liberals would be arguing they can defund anything they want. Everybody knows that. The actual issue of funding mandates is irrelevant to them, it's the transactional argument to get their way on this transactional issue.

Liberalism is a transactional ideology. Everything they ever argue, they contradict arguing something else. That's what you get when you have ideologues. Unfortunately while liberals are ideologues, Republicans have no real views on anything. That's why liberals are dominating. They're nuts, but it works.

I'm arguing the issue and the facts. You should try it.

 

[bendog]

And I still have no clue as to what misapprenhension Kaz operates under. LOL

I'm back to thinking it's the origination clause. I guess he/she thinks the Senate cannot simply amend a bill to substitue whatever language it wants, and ship the amended bill back to the house

 

[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.

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.

Demonizing Obamacare was the propaganda tactic of creating a very singular simplistic 'common enemy' situation to give the right something to hate without having to think too much about it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And I still have no clue as to what misapprenhension Kaz operates under. LOL

I'm back to thinking it's the origination clause. I guess he/she thinks the Senate cannot simply amend a bill to substitue whatever language it wants, and ship the amended bill back to the house

If someone with standing thinks the ACA was unconstitutionally originated, all they have to do is challenge it in court.

 

[bendog]

And I still have no clue as to what misapprenhension Kaz operates under. LOL

I'm back to thinking it's the origination clause. I guess he/she thinks the Senate cannot simply amend a bill to substitue whatever language it wants, and ship the amended bill back to the house

If someone with standing thinks the ACA was unconstitutionally originated, all they have to do is challenge it in court.

Well, that was my original confusion as to Kaz (and Contuminacus sp)'s posts. I was under the impression that had one of the gop state Attorney Generals thought this crapola made any sense, they'd have brought it up before the scotus.

 

[kaz]

And I still have no clue as to what misapprenhension Kaz operates under. LOL

I'm back to thinking it's the origination clause. I guess he/she thinks the Senate cannot simply amend a bill to substitue whatever language it wants, and ship the amended bill back to the house

If someone with standing thinks the ACA was unconstitutionally originated, all they have to do is challenge it in court.

Well, that was my original confusion as to Kaz (and Contuminacus sp)'s posts. I was under the impression that had one of the gop state Attorney Generals thought this crapola made any sense, they'd have brought it up before the scotus.

No question is ever simple enough for liberals. Where does the Constitution compel the Republicans to spend money on any program? They are not repealing Obamacare, they are simply not spending money on it in their budget.

The Constitution does give them the right to vote on the budget.

The Constitution does not compel them to fund any program.

It is interesting how the more liberals you have in a discussion, the fewer combined IQ points you have.

 

[Seawytch]

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...

Which has already been answered. The GOP had a "say". The CR the Boehner worked out with Reid was far below the spending levels Democrats wanted. The Boehner agreed to it then reneged when he got Teabagged.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If someone with standing thinks the ACA was unconstitutionally originated, all they have to do is challenge it in court.

Well, that was my original confusion as to Kaz (and Contuminacus sp)'s posts. I was under the impression that had one of the gop state Attorney Generals thought this crapola made any sense, they'd have brought it up before the scotus.

No question is ever simple enough for liberals. Where does the Constitution compel the Republicans to spend money on any program? They are not repealing Obamacare, they are simply not spending money on it in their budget.

The Constitution does give them the right to vote on the budget.

The Constitution does not compel them to fund any program.

It is interesting how the more liberals you have in a discussion, the fewer combined IQ points you have.

Obamacare is funded by the ACA law itself. It is not funded by separate appropriation.

 

[kaz]

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

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

Which has already been answered. The GOP had a "say". The CR the Boehner worked out with Reid was far below the spending levels Democrats wanted. The Boehner agreed to it then reneged when he got Teabagged.

No, it's not answered. You're sitting on the ball and calling Boehner a double dog cheater. So? Nothing there takes away the need to pass a funding bill in the House. Boehner can't take that right away from his party even if he wanted to. So, how does the House have no say on the budget whether what you claim is true or not?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If someone with standing thinks the ACA was unconstitutionally originated, all they have to do is challenge it in court.

Well, that was my original confusion as to Kaz (and Contuminacus sp)'s posts. I was under the impression that had one of the gop state Attorney Generals thought this crapola made any sense, they'd have brought it up before the scotus.

No question is ever simple enough for liberals. Where does the Constitution compel the Republicans to spend money on any program? They are not repealing Obamacare, they are simply not spending money on it in their budget.

The Constitution does give them the right to vote on the budget.

The Constitution does not compel them to fund any program.

It is interesting how the more liberals you have in a discussion, the fewer combined IQ points you have.

It might materially improve your ability to participate in a meaningful manner in this conversation if you would at least attempt to apprehend a rudimentary understanding of the difference between mandatory and discretionary spending.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Which has already been answered. The GOP had a "say". The CR the Boehner worked out with Reid was far below the spending levels Democrats wanted. The Boehner agreed to it then reneged when he got Teabagged.

No, it's not answered. You're sitting on the ball and calling Boehner a double dog cheater. So? Nothing there takes away the need to pass a funding bill in the House. Boehner can't take that right away from his party even if he wanted to. So, how does the House have no say on the budget whether what you claim is true or not?

They are having 'their say'. The government operating under discretionary spending is shut down. They shut it down.

They are having 'their say'. They voted to defund Obamacare. That is 'their say'. Unfortunately for them, under the law, 'their say' is not sufficient by itself to defund Obamacare.

 

[francoHFW]

OP- Of course they do, but they don't have the right to screw up the economy to extort it, at least not without screwing themselves LOL...Tea Party brainwashed FUNCTIONAL MORONS...change the channel, your propagandizing charlatans are screwing you while laughing all the way to the bank...