Why does the House have no say on the budget?

[Seawytch]

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?

I sure hope the far left progressive caucus is taking notes. Maybe we can get those Bush tax cuts repealed at the $250K level after all...we just have to wait for a Republican President. Maybe in 2024...

 

[edthecynic]

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?

Artical 1, Section 7 of the US Constitution:
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.

 

[Hoffstra]

no budget passes without House approval.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

I'll try again. 'Mandatory spending' is spending that is required by existing law.

Existing laws don't have to be renewed every year.

Try this:

You click on 'mandatory spending' to get the difference between it and discretionary spending clarified.

Discretionary spending (vs. Mandatory spending) » Comeback America Initiative

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

They're talking about a CR funding the government at about 990 billion.

Now why would they be funding at that number, when the total budget is around 3 trillion?

I will answer for you:

Because almost 2/3rds of the budget is mandatory spending.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

It's hard to raise money in a 30 second tv spot if your cause takes even 31 seconds to explain.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

So you essentially hold the dissenting opinion in the case, but, as a constitutional scholar you should know that the majority opinion decides the case,

and that's that.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

The SCOTUS is irrelevant. The motherfuckers are there just so the government can perpetrate the fraud that we still enjoy judicial review. In exchange they get a salary , federal blue cross blue shield and the prestige.

.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The Constitution says no such thing. The House has sole authority to initiate REVENUE bills. As for spending bills:

"Bills may be introduced by any member of either house. However, the Constitution provides that: "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." As a result, the Senate does not have the power to initiate bills imposing taxes. Furthermore, the House of Representatives holds that the Senate does not have the power to originate appropriation bills, or bills authorizing the expenditure of federal funds. Historically, the Senate has disputed the interpretation advocated by the House. However, whenever the Senate originates an appropriations bill, the House simply refuses to consider it, thereby settling the dispute in practice. Nevertheless, while the Senate cannot originate revenue and appropriation bills, it does retain the power to amend or reject them. A congressional act in 1974 established procedures to try to establish appropriate annual spending levels.[4]"

Wiki

Therefore, the House simply has usurped the power to inuitate spending bills, without Constitutional authority.

Therefore, consider your question answered.

 

[Contumacious]

The Constitution says no such thing. The House has sole authority to initiate REVENUE bills. As for spending bills:

"Bills may be introduced by any member of either house. However, the Constitution provides that: "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." As a result, the Senate does not have the power to initiate bills imposing taxes. Furthermore, the House of Representatives holds that the Senate does not have the power to originate appropriation bills, or bills authorizing the expenditure of federal funds. Historically, the Senate has disputed the interpretation advocated by the House. However, whenever the Senate originates an appropriations bill, the House simply refuses to consider it, thereby settling the dispute in practice. Nevertheless, while the Senate cannot originate revenue and appropriation bills, it does retain the power to amend or reject them. A congressional act in 1974 established procedures to try to establish appropriate annual spending levels.[4]"

Wiki

Therefore, the House simply has usurped the power to inuitate spending bills, without Constitutional authority.

Therefore, consider your question answered.

True. De Jure.

But the scumbags in the supreme court have ruled that the senate can rewrite a revenue bill IN ITS ENTIRETY under the guise of amending it.

So the House must continue to demand that Obama hellcare be defunded.

That's the only choice that we have in order to SLOW DOWN calamity.

.

 

[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...

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

The difference is, you get all your ''facts'' from Pub propagandists, and I don't know anyone who listens to MSNBC ALL THE TIME- THEY DO WASTE FAR TOO MUCH TIME fighting Pubcrappe, while most news sources just ignore it, Pub dupe...All YOU get is lies and spin, makes you a functional MORON. Notice I DON'T SAY YOU ARE AN ACTUAL MORON- IT'S MY CONTINENTAL MANNERS...

 

[candycorn]

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.

I deflected nothing. I asked you a question which you have side-stepped. No surprise; it's your nature.

 

[candycorn]

The Constitution says no such thing. The House has sole authority to initiate REVENUE bills. As for spending bills:

"Bills may be introduced by any member of either house. However, the Constitution provides that: "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." As a result, the Senate does not have the power to initiate bills imposing taxes. Furthermore, the House of Representatives holds that the Senate does not have the power to originate appropriation bills, or bills authorizing the expenditure of federal funds. Historically, the Senate has disputed the interpretation advocated by the House. However, whenever the Senate originates an appropriations bill, the House simply refuses to consider it, thereby settling the dispute in practice. Nevertheless, while the Senate cannot originate revenue and appropriation bills, it does retain the power to amend or reject them. A congressional act in 1974 established procedures to try to establish appropriate annual spending levels.[4]"

Wiki

Therefore, the House simply has usurped the power to inuitate spending bills, without Constitutional authority.

Therefore, consider your question answered.

He has dismissed your reality and substituted one of his own.

 

[Hoffstra]

..The SCOTUS is irrelevant. The motherfuckers are there just so the government can perpetrate the fraud that we still enjoy judicial review. In exchange they get a salary , federal blue cross blue shield and the prestige.

.

The Supreme Court is irrelevent?

they are the only thing that keeps us from becoming a Fascist State.

Hitler too felt that a Supreme Court that didn't agree with his ideas, was irrelevent.

You're in interesting company, dude.

 

[Contumacious]

..The SCOTUS is irrelevant. The motherfuckers are there just so the government can perpetrate the fraud that we still enjoy judicial review. In exchange they get a salary , federal blue cross blue shield and the prestige.

.

The Supreme Court is irrelevent?

they are the only thing that keeps us from becoming a Fascist State.

Hitler too felt that a Supreme Court that didn't agree with his ideas, was irrelevent.

You're in interesting company, dude.

The Founding Fathers set up a small central government whose powers were specifically enumerated,

Now we have a behemoth with unlimited powers who can force us to buy health insurance

But ignorant fools and or parasites like yourself believe that more government is freedom and lest government is fascism.

.

 

[Hoffstra]

The Founding Fathers set up a small central government whose powers were specifically enumerated,

Now we have a behemoth with unlimited powers who can force us to buy health insurance

But ignorant fools and or parasites like yourself believe that more government is freedom and lest government is fascism.

.

In 1792, Congress ordered all white man aged 18-45 to buy a gun, ammo, and a satchel.

.....but that doesn't bother you, does it?

 

[kaz]

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?

Artical 1, Section 7 of the US Constitution:
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.

Ed, baby, that isn't the question. The point being made is that the House "had" their say. I'm not even going to who originated the bill, I'm mocking g5000 for the idiotic point "they had their say" on a budget which hasn't been enacted. So now he's going to show me how in the Constitution you pass a budget without it passing the House.

This is the cue for you g5000...

 

[kaz]

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?

They're talking about a CR funding the government at about 990 billion.

Now why would they be funding at that number, when the total budget is around 3 trillion?

I will answer for you:

Because almost 2/3rds of the budget is mandatory spending.

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?

 

[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.

So you essentially hold the dissenting opinion in the case, but, as a constitutional scholar you should know that the majority opinion decides the case,

and that's that.

I am learning so much from you. I thought the Chief Justice was the only vote that mattered. I wish I'd talked to you before civics in high school. Instead of an A I'd have gotten through on a social promotion like you did.

A better question rather than pointing out the obvious would be just to ask why I blame Roberts over the other four. I do blame them all for committing crimes against the people, but I blame Roberts the most because the others are leftist ideologues and at least believed in their vote. Roberts based on all his background was clearly the political hack who knew better and screwed his country for his own, self centered benefit.

 

[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.

The difference is, you get all your ''facts'' from Pub propagandists, and I don't know anyone who listens to MSNBC ALL THE TIME- THEY DO WASTE FAR TOO MUCH TIME fighting Pubcrappe, while most news sources just ignore it, Pub dupe...All YOU get is lies and spin, makes you a functional MORON. Notice I DON'T SAY YOU ARE AN ACTUAL MORON- IT'S MY CONTINENTAL MANNERS...

Yes, those "pub propagandists" are clever buggers. Programming me to be a libertarian. It would have been so much more obvious if they'd programmed me to agree with them. You on the other hand aren't parroting MS-NBC, you just independently arrived at the same answer to every question for the same reasons, which is why you use the same words as show hosts who make commercials for the DNC.