USA Federal government: CLOSED
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
This whole "both sides do it" argument might have some validity - except that the ACA isn't being funded through the CR budgetary process. It's already been legally funded. While it can still be defunded by an act of Congress, of course, the movement to defund it has been through using a secondary rider attached to CR for funding government operations, much like how Congresscritters attach pork spending to spending bills. They are separate things that have been stuck together into a single resolution despite not being directly related.
This what the the "clean CR" talk is all about. The narrative that the article tries to set - that the House is submitting its CR for operational funding as part of the normal process and defunding Obamacare is a natural part of that process - is inaccurate and very misleading.
This what the the "clean CR" talk is all about. The narrative that the article tries to set - that the House is submitting its CR for operational funding as part of the normal process and defunding Obamacare is a natural part of that process - is inaccurate and very misleading.
He point of the article is that the house controls the purse strings. That's intentional. If they decide to hold the purse for one thing that's a valid choice. Just because a previous session chose not to require refunding a bill frequently doesn't mean that a future session can't reverse course on that.
Again, some might disagree. Perhaps they believe spending bills are written in stone or something.
But it's a perspective some here don't seem to understand. The house controls the appropriations. It's not being a bully to withhold money for laws they don't agree with, just as it isn't being a bully to veto a bill or to refuse to sign it in the senate.
They all have a part to play.
Again, some might disagree. Perhaps they believe spending bills are written in stone or something.
But it's a perspective some here don't seem to understand. The house controls the appropriations. It's not being a bully to withhold money for laws they don't agree with, just as it isn't being a bully to veto a bill or to refuse to sign it in the senate.
They all have a part to play.
Actually...
Mr. Mime isn't completely horrible. Base 120 special defense and base 100 special attack means he's often capable of switching in and doing some damage. He also has a niche role as an essential part of the Baton Pass chain strategy, given how he has the Soundproof ability and thus can't be phazed out by Roar or Perish Song. For competitive battling he's usually outclassed by other Psychic-types like Alakazam, and Mr. Mime isn't a Pokemon you can just slap onto a team and expect it to shine. But if you play to its strengths, it's not useless at all.
Pretty dumb looking though.
Mr. Mime isn't completely horrible. Base 120 special defense and base 100 special attack means he's often capable of switching in and doing some damage. He also has a niche role as an essential part of the Baton Pass chain strategy, given how he has the Soundproof ability and thus can't be phazed out by Roar or Perish Song. For competitive battling he's usually outclassed by other Psychic-types like Alakazam, and Mr. Mime isn't a Pokemon you can just slap onto a team and expect it to shine. But if you play to its strengths, it's not useless at all.
Pretty dumb looking though.
GasBandit
Staff member
Tell that to Nicaragua Contras, and the marines who got pulled out of Lebanon against Reagan's wishes when the house cut their funding.
Exactly. It's also just not one purse. Not all appropriations are the same.
They're not specifically trying to pass a bill about defunding Obamacare, they're attaching it as a secondary condition to a bill that's about keeping the federal budget going. They are two separate things, and trying to say that this is a case of the Senate and House CR budgets being different and not negotiating about it is completely erroneous.
The house has to write appropriations bills. The senate cannot write one and try to pass it in the house.
To say the house holds the purse strings isn't wrong. They don't write the bill, then it can't ever be written in the senate.
Yes, both have to pass it for it to take effect. This means the senate can essentially veto it.
But they can't write it.
The house has spent the last week writing bills to restart the federal government and the senate has been busy refusing them reading, let alone debate.
Weren't the contras defunded via the NDAA (or w/e they called it at the time) for that year? As in, via the bill that spending for the Contras was always supposed to be determined in?
And did the marines in Lebanon pull out because their funding got pulled or because Congress passed a million non-binding resolutions to withdraw and Reagan finally acquiesced?
I'm really not interested in arguing with you, Stienman. The President usually submits a budget proposal, it goes to Congress who then pass a budget in BOTH HOUSES to be signed by the President. So what you really mean is the president writes a proposal, the House writes a bill, and then the Senate decides whether they are off their rocker.
When every bill the House says "Delay that thing which was approved 4 years ago and ruled constitutional by the US Supreme Court", I can't say I blame them. You have to change your tune before a new bill will be accepted, and the House just doesn't get doing the same thing over and over again is the definition of crazy.
When every bill the House says "Delay that thing which was approved 4 years ago and ruled constitutional by the US Supreme Court", I can't say I blame them. You have to change your tune before a new bill will be accepted, and the House just doesn't get doing the same thing over and over again is the definition of crazy.
GasBandit
Staff member
Except the bill that was passed 4 years ago is not what is being implemented now. Parts of it have already been "delayed," including the business mandate. Obama's handed out exemptions like Halloween candy to all his backers and cronies. Don't pretend that what was passed 4 years ago is unsullied and sancrosanct.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Article I, section 7.
You can disagree with the constitution if you like, but this isn't simply splitting hairs.
Both sides have used these powers from time to time to essentially financially veto actions of prior sessions and other branches of the government.
Article I, section 7.
You can disagree with the constitution if you like, but this isn't simply splitting hairs.
Both sides have used these powers from time to time to essentially financially veto actions of prior sessions and other branches of the government.
I'm not sure what you're trying to claim here. Of course the House writes the initial bill form of the budget (whereas the Senate just writes guidance for the House beforehand to show their intentions). Of course, they are free to write a defund Obamacare bill if they want; but they made a conscious choice here to tie it to the federal budget bill, which is a separate thing.
This is not a "the House federal budget bill did not include money for Obamacare because they don't like it and the federal budget determines how Obamacare gets funded" situation. This is a "the House federal budget bill came with a conditional demand that Obamacare also be defunded".
And their conscious decision to tie that power to the unrelated federal budget bill makes it entirely their responsibility for making it part of the conversation.
I suppose it depends on your opponent. The trouble with specialized Pokemon like that is that they tend to only be good in certain circumstances, unlike STAB types where they're good in most circumstances that don't have you facing a Shuckle under the influence of Trick Room/Power Trick combo. I suppose it's just me, but I get nervous tossing out a Substitute and expecting the moment who's building stats to live long enough to Baton Pass them in a competitive battle. I don't experiment a lot because it takes so much time breeding the right IV, and then even more time building up the EVs. Supposedly X/Y have a new function for building those stats more quickly and directly via mini-games, so maybe the competitive field will involve less bullshit and more chances to try new strategies without wasting time building up Pokemon for nothing.
As it is, I don't consider Mr. Mime to be the best choice for that type of strategy. Again, I've never seen anyone use one. Seen Girafarig for Baton Pass. I suppose the Soundproof element would make him worthwhile. Exploud's stats are too low to make it viable for a solid position on a 3 to 4 Pokemon team.
You contend that because it's been funded... It cannot be defunded.
Not even the constitution is written in stone, and you propose that the healthcare law is?
Their responsibility is to ensure the funds gained from taxes are used appropriately. Just the fact alone that the healthcare act is going to be a monumental drain on the federal budget is reason enough to bring it into the conversation.
If the democrats want to keep it, why don't they cut something else out?
Let's not forget how the Early years of the democratically controlled White House and congress doubled the deficit of our country. Had the people not switched one part of congress out we would still be spending like there's no tomorrow.
Simply accepting all the bad decisions of the last several years would be nearly as bad as them controlling the house again as well.
But I understand this won't convince you that what they're doing is completely in line with their constitutional mandate.
I'm pretty sure Reagan found a way to fund those contras.
No, I'm saying it's ludicrous to say the House should be allowed to cause havoc because they don't like something which has already been funded. This is insane, and would be insane no matter which party was doing it.
I also contend this wouldn't be an issue (and we wouldn't have such extreme congressional members) if it wasn't for the 'safe' gerrymandered house seats.
I also contend this wouldn't be an issue (and we wouldn't have such extreme congressional members) if it wasn't for the 'safe' gerrymandered house seats.
Krisken, what he's saying is that the House is more or less the sticking point right now as to why the Federal government isn't getting funded.
Because financing bills are required by the Constitution to originate there, they can continue to toss rider after rider onto any continuing spending resolution ad infinitum.
It's scary when you think about it: 435 people are holding the US hostage because they don't want to fund the ACA, and they refuse to send any spending resolution to the Senate that doesn't have a clause that removes funding from the ACA.
And mid-term elections aren't for another year and a month, sadly.[DOUBLEPOST=1381116121,1381115998][/DOUBLEPOST]
Because financing bills are required by the Constitution to originate there, they can continue to toss rider after rider onto any continuing spending resolution ad infinitum.
It's scary when you think about it: 435 people are holding the US hostage because they don't want to fund the ACA, and they refuse to send any spending resolution to the Senate that doesn't have a clause that removes funding from the ACA.
And mid-term elections aren't for another year and a month, sadly.[DOUBLEPOST=1381116121,1381115998][/DOUBLEPOST]
The question, Mr. Stienman, is what exactly kind of legislation could be agreed upon by all parties that could keep this from being an option again? Short of a constitutional amendment that prevents the government from not paying its debts or not having a budget in a timely manner, it ain't happening anytime soon.
If that's what he's saying, then the Senate could do the same thing by not ratifying what they put forth (hence, where were at). It's just not accurate to say "The House has control" because they really don't. I just don't understand the point of continuing to say they 'hold the purse strings' when it's a joint effort by the House and Senate, to be signed by the President.
Which they themselves vote upon.
I don't feel Congress should be the body that decides how much power Congress has.
As far as I'm concerned the system is working. I don't see a need to change their division of power. You are all up in arms about how the house can essentially hold things up until the other parties finally come to the table on a contentious issue, but the senate and president can hold things up as well.
They each have different mandates, and as such the way they hold things up will necessarily be different.
You are irritated at what you see as a gross abuse of power.
I'm irritated at the gross abuse of power that allowed the healthcare act to be put in place in the first place.
If you don't like the state of affairs you can seek to change the balance of power, but I don't think it needs to be changed, I think the system is working as designed and intended, and changing the balance of power will probably cause things to oscillate even more wildly in the future. Who do you give the power to? The president? All well and good until there's someone in there you disagree with and you can't stop them. The senate? Same issue, except now Rhode Island has as much power as California.
You don't have to like it. But you shouldn't whine about it. Ram an unpopular law through during the brief window your party has control, and do you honestly believe it's going to go smoothly until it's fixed? No. We stop the whole bus until everyone is happy, or at least equally unhappy.
Any part of the government can stop the bus. They each have a different method of doing it, but it's the responsibility of all tries to come to the table and hammer out the differences. When one party says, "we will not negotiate" and refuses to discuss the problem, then it is that parties fault.
I understand most of you disagree. You seem to believe that it's the fault of the person pressing on the brakes, rather than those unwilling to work together to find a solution to the problem.
They each have different mandates, and as such the way they hold things up will necessarily be different.
You are irritated at what you see as a gross abuse of power.
I'm irritated at the gross abuse of power that allowed the healthcare act to be put in place in the first place.
If you don't like the state of affairs you can seek to change the balance of power, but I don't think it needs to be changed, I think the system is working as designed and intended, and changing the balance of power will probably cause things to oscillate even more wildly in the future. Who do you give the power to? The president? All well and good until there's someone in there you disagree with and you can't stop them. The senate? Same issue, except now Rhode Island has as much power as California.
You don't have to like it. But you shouldn't whine about it. Ram an unpopular law through during the brief window your party has control, and do you honestly believe it's going to go smoothly until it's fixed? No. We stop the whole bus until everyone is happy, or at least equally unhappy.
Any part of the government can stop the bus. They each have a different method of doing it, but it's the responsibility of all tries to come to the table and hammer out the differences. When one party says, "we will not negotiate" and refuses to discuss the problem, then it is that parties fault.
I understand most of you disagree. You seem to believe that it's the fault of the person pressing on the brakes, rather than those unwilling to work together to find a solution to the problem.
The problem is the only solution is for the republicans to get what they want. They don't want to find a compromise. If they have one, please tell me what it is. Other than get rid of the health care law, because that's not compromise. That's give me what I want or I'll throw a fit and hurt whoever I can in the process.
I've felt Congress has had too much power for years. This is another example, not a turning point.
To see this as the system working is to ignore that the system was set-up in the belief that those who are part of it would want to come to a resolution. Issuing ultimatums is not a means towards resolution. But then, no system can be fool-proof.
To see this as the system working is to ignore that the system was set-up in the belief that those who are part of it would want to come to a resolution. Issuing ultimatums is not a means towards resolution. But then, no system can be fool-proof.
And you could say that he has compromised time and time again by delaying portions of it and trying to give them the health care bill they once supported to get them to do anything. There comes a time when you have to step back and say it's enough. It's time to stop giving in and stand your ground.
I didn't say it's not.
Neither would the Democrats defunding the military in a rider to their own federal budget bill despite the passage of the NDAA. Doesn't make it right, and doesn't make it the "responsibility of both sides".
I don't see how TAHA being passed was any more of a failure of the system than the current situation. To put it in your own words: As far as I'm concerned the system [was] working.
An odd thought towards that point: if the system is literally not working, can the system really be still working?
*Edit* Just wanted to add. I am not a big fan of TAHA. I think the rhetoric is horribly overblown about it too.