Why does the House have no say on the budget?

[kaz]

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.

You're not capable of materially improving your ability to participate in a meaningful manner in any discussion. You don't get things.

If it's mandatory, why are they voting on it at all? Why is government shut down?

How can a prior congress compel the current congress to make it mandatory? I know what the word means, I don't know what makes it "mandatory." The Constitution doesn't. And the Constitution does give them a vote on spending money though.

So how even to you is:

What a prior congress told them to do > their power to determine the budget in the Constitution?

Just because you want this?

 

[g5000]

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.

They had their say. And the Constitutional checks and balances on their idiocy them told them to pack sand. Funny how you guys forget that part of the Constitution.

 

[kaz]

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...

Damn strait, those Fox watchers are morons. Now being programmed by MS-NBC, you're brilliant.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

The HOUSE shut down the government because Obama wouldn't agree to delay (halt, my ass) Obamacare? If it's HIS refusal, how did THEY shut it down? Seems to me that sentence pretty obviously states that HE shut it down, not them.

And what the fuck is this "clean CR" you dipshits miraculously pulled out of your asses? There've been innumerable spending resolutions throughout the years, so why is this ultra-holy "clean CR" spiel only just now appearing on the scene, never having been mentioned by anyone in politics previously?

 

[kaz]

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.

They had their say. And the Constitutional checks and balances on them told them to pack sand. Funny how you guys forget that part of the Constitution.

Can you provide the link where this budget was passed according to the procedures laid out in the Constitution?

 

[bendog]

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.

The HOUSE shut down the government because Obama wouldn't agree to delay (halt, my ass) Obamacare? If it's HIS refusal, how did THEY shut it down? Seems to me that sentence pretty obviously states that HE shut it down, not them.

And what the fuck is this "clean CR" you dipshits miraculously pulled out of your asses? There've been innumerable spending resolutions throughout the years, so why is this ultra-holy "clean CR" spiel only just now appearing on the scene, never having been mentioned by anyone in politics previously?

calling me a dipshit causes me to say go f yourself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Another whiner whining.

The House doesn't have a say, you say? Are you effing kidding?

Do you even know what the Continuing Resolution is and does? It's the Republican-approved Sequester Budget that Harry Reid and then Obama signed off on. It cuts discretionary spending as well as spending on a host of liberal issues.

Why Republicans aren't passing it is baffling.

But to say they have no say is just stupid, when it's a conservative budget in the first place in a land where they only control one third of the government.

Obama gave them $9 in spending cuts last year for every $1 in tax increases, and you have the nerve to ask why Republicans don't have a say? Are you retarded?

This whole economy is still modeled after the Republican scam that is "trickle down", which really means trickle down pain for regular people but unlimited wealth for the very few.

Stop bitching. This is a Republican free market still at work for Mitt Romney and all your other heroes, just not you and every other regular person in this country.

Get a clue.

Do you realize that you're completely babbling, and utterly misunderstanding what the OP wrote - not to mention reality - to an extent I would find surprising in my 5 year old, let alone a putative adult? The cognitive dissonance caused by trying to reconcile your post with anything existing in this dimension made my eyes water.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The House and the Senate have to agree on a budget.

American Civics 101.

Glad you realize this. Now tell Harry Reid to get his skinny, shriveled ass to the table and start hammering out an agreement . . . and I DON'T mean "Give me everything I want, and your shirt too" like he's trying now.

 

[kaz]

I just wanted to take a moment from the firestorm over Obamacare and remember the man who made the impasse and shut down possible.

John Roberts, who bent over backwards by striking on that the mandate was a tax, even though no one in the case was arguing it was a tax and there is no Constitutional Authority for government to tax whether people have medical insurance or not or to compel people to enter into private contracts with a business.

Then based on the mandate being a tax, he let the rest of the law be implemented even though there is no Constitutional Authority for government to regulate intrastate commerce as the endless mandates are doing.

And he did this because he had a career and his legacy in the liberal media to think about, and that was his priority over his beliefs, his country and intellectual integrity.

So, as we continue to debate funding versus defunding versus repealing in a further divided country with a government that continues to grow ever larger and stronger, let's all take a moment out of our day to remember the man who made it possible.

John Roberts, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

You're not capable of materially improving your ability to participate in a meaningful manner in any discussion. You don't get things.

If it's mandatory, why are they voting on it at all? Why is government shut down?

How can a prior congress compel the current congress to make it mandatory? I know what the word means, I don't know what makes it "mandatory." The Constitution doesn't. And the Constitution does give them a vote on spending money though.

So how even to you is:

What a prior congress told them to do > their power to determine the budget in the Constitution?

Just because you want this?

Mandatory spending is not 'shut down'.

They can defund mandatory spending but they have to do it legislatively. I explained it at length in an earlier post and invited anyone to correct anything I said that was factually wrong.

 

[candycorn]

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...

I pointed it out; you seem not to know much about the Federal government. I also typed out quite a bit of other things...you can address them or not...up to you boy.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Good point...

The right wing doesn't do details.

 

[kaz]

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...

I pointed it out; you seem not to know much about the Federal government. I also typed out quite a bit of other things...you can address them or not...up to you boy.

They are deflection. To go to the President, a budget has to pass both Houses of Congress. That hasn't happened. The House is one of the two Houses of Congress. If you want to pass a spending bill, then as the majority party, Republicans have a say. None of your deflections change that fact.

 

[kaz]

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.

You're not capable of materially improving your ability to participate in a meaningful manner in any discussion. You don't get things.

If it's mandatory, why are they voting on it at all? Why is government shut down?

How can a prior congress compel the current congress to make it mandatory? I know what the word means, I don't know what makes it "mandatory." The Constitution doesn't. And the Constitution does give them a vote on spending money though.

So how even to you is:

What a prior congress told them to do > their power to determine the budget in the Constitution?

Just because you want this?

Mandatory spending is not 'shut down'.

They can defund mandatory spending but they have to do it legislatively. I explained it at length in an earlier post and invited anyone to correct anything I said that was factually wrong.

You are wrong in that only the current congress gets a vote on this year's budget. Then the President has a choice whether to sign it. No where in the Constitution does it give prior Congresses a say in spending money this year. Seriously, how do you not grasp that?

Majority House, majority Senate sends it to the President. Prior Congresses aren't mentioned.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

You keep asking the same question that has been answered. They had a say. The Boehner wouldn't assign ANY budget chairs when the Senate did (months ago) and then reneged on the CR (at lower levels than Dems wanted).

I'm sure you'll support Democrats doing this hostage taking over bills they don't like when and if a republican ever sits in the WH, right?

 

[kaz]

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?

You keep asking the same question that has been answered. They had a say. The Boehner wouldn't assign ANY budget chairs when the Senate did (months ago) and then reneged on the CR (at lower levels than Dems wanted).

I'm sure you'll support Democrats doing this hostage taking over bills they don't like when and if a republican ever sits in the WH, right?

I like the liberal thing about having no long term memory and saying duh, you don't get it makes you intelligent. I'm a libertarian, and I will donate $100 to Greenpeace if you can show any of the 8,000+ posts I've written that said a positive thing about the Republican party.

As for the question, you haven't answered shit until you can explain how a spending bill can be enacted without approval by the House. You haven't done that yet. So?

 

[Seawytch]

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?

You keep asking the same question that has been answered. They had a say. The Boehner wouldn't assign ANY budget chairs when the Senate did (months ago) and then reneged on the CR (at lower levels than Dems wanted).

I'm sure you'll support Democrats doing this hostage taking over bills they don't like when and if a republican ever sits in the WH, right?

I like the liberal thing about having no long term memory and saying duh, you don't get it makes you intelligent. I'm a libertarian, and I will donate $100 to Greenpeace if you can show any of the 8,000+ posts I've written that said a positive thing about the Republican party.

As for the question, you haven't answered shit until you can explain how a spending bill can be enacted without approval by the House. You haven't done that yet. So?

The House had their "say", they're called votes and they don't have enough for what they want. Holding the country hostage because you don't like a law isn't how our system of government works. The minority party doesn't get to take the ball and shut down the government like petulant children.

 

[amrchaos]

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.

Actually--they do have a say.

Even so, the political situation allows Reid and Obama to say no to negotiations--that is the republicans are asking a bit too much given the alternatives to the democrats--i.e. GOP has little to no leverage with the democrats right before the shut down plus threats of defaulting is not a winning tactic in anybodies political handbook.

 

[kaz]

You keep asking the same question that has been answered. They had a say. The Boehner wouldn't assign ANY budget chairs when the Senate did (months ago) and then reneged on the CR (at lower levels than Dems wanted).

I'm sure you'll support Democrats doing this hostage taking over bills they don't like when and if a republican ever sits in the WH, right?

I like the liberal thing about having no long term memory and saying duh, you don't get it makes you intelligent. I'm a libertarian, and I will donate $100 to Greenpeace if you can show any of the 8,000+ posts I've written that said a positive thing about the Republican party.

As for the question, you haven't answered shit until you can explain how a spending bill can be enacted without approval by the House. You haven't done that yet. So?

The House had their "say", they're called votes and they don't have enough for what they want. Holding the country hostage because you don't like a law isn't how our system of government works. The minority party doesn't get to take the ball and shut down the government like petulant children.

Got it. However, since no budget has been passed, can you show the part of the Constitution that says their approval isn't needed for a budget anymore?

 

[waronwhistleblo]