CDZ Congress' job is to pass a budget -- appropriations and continuing resolutions

[danielpalos]

Congress' job is to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Congress' job is to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

Congress' job is to pay the debts

Actually, it's not. Payment execution is an executive branch function, except for obligations Congress incurs expressly in connection with operating Congress.

Examples of things that fall into that category include maintenance contracts for the grounds of the Capitol, maintenance and refurbishment of Congressional property, Congressional member and staff payrolls, etc. That said, even for such obligations that are Congress' alone, Congress often delegates the payment execution function to the Executive Branch.

The general procure-to-pay process of governments, all of them, consists of the following activities/responsibilities:

1. Executive --> Funding authorization requests
2. Legislature --> Funding authorization
3. Executive --> Funds acquisition and management/administration
4. Executive --> Goods and services procurement in pursuit of stipulated objectives
5. Executive --> Funds disbursement to suppliers of goods and services (this is payment execution)
6. Executive --> Performance measurement and analysis

provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

That is such a broad statement that it is rightly construed as being the responsibility of every federal government employee.

 

[danielpalos]

Congress' job is to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

Congress' job is to pay the debts

Actually, it's not. Payment execution is an executive branch function, except for obligations Congress incurs expressly in connection with operating Congress.

Examples of things that fall into that category include maintenance contracts for the grounds of the Capitol, maintenance and refurbishment of Congressional property, Congressional member and staff payrolls, etc. That said, even for such obligations that are Congress' alone, Congress often delegates the payment execution function to the Executive Branch.

The general procure-to-pay process of governments, all of them, consists of the following activities/responsibilities:

1. Executive --> Funding authorization requests
2. Legislature --> Funding authorization
3. Executive --> Funds acquisition and management/administration
4. Executive --> Goods and services procurement in pursuit of stipulated objectives
5. Executive --> Funds disbursement to suppliers of goods and services (this is payment execution)
6. Executive --> Performance measurement and analysis

provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

That is such a broad statement that it is rightly construed as being the responsibility of every federal government employee.

Actually, the social Power to Tax is given to Congress to pay the debts. Why do you need to quibble?

 

[Wry Catcher]

All well and good. The House has passed required budgets for years. It's the DemocRATs in the Senate who have refused to do so for more than 7 years!

Reapportionment will cure this, when the H. or Rep. is returned to the House of the People, and Ryan&Co. are sent home, a fair tax reform bill will replace the Fraud passed time and signed last December. It's past time to fix the imbalance of wealth in our nation.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Congress' job is to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

Congress' job is to pay the debts

Actually, it's not. Payment execution is an executive branch function, except for obligations Congress incurs expressly in connection with operating Congress.

Examples of things that fall into that category include maintenance contracts for the grounds of the Capitol, maintenance and refurbishment of Congressional property, Congressional member and staff payrolls, etc. That said, even for such obligations that are Congress' alone, Congress often delegates the payment execution function to the Executive Branch.

The general procure-to-pay process of governments, all of them, consists of the following activities/responsibilities:

1. Executive --> Funding authorization requests
2. Legislature --> Funding authorization
3. Executive --> Funds acquisition and management/administration
4. Executive --> Goods and services procurement in pursuit of stipulated objectives
5. Executive --> Funds disbursement to suppliers of goods and services (this is payment execution)
6. Executive --> Performance measurement and analysis

provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

That is such a broad statement that it is rightly construed as being the responsibility of every federal government employee.

Actually, the social Power to Tax is given to Congress to pay the debts. Why do you need to quibble?

social Power to Tax

WTH is that?

 

[usmbguest5318]

All well and good. The House has passed required budgets for years. It's the DemocRATs in the Senate who have refused to do so for more than 7 years!

Reapportionment will cure this, when the H. or Rep. is returned to the House of the People, and Ryan&Co. are sent home, a fair tax reform bill will replace the Fraud passed time and signed last December. It's past time to fix the imbalance of wealth in our nation.

Off Topic:

It's past time to fix the imbalance of wealth in our nation.

The "fix" to whatever wealth imbalances there be will not be resolved legislatively. While the very poorest Americans might wish it could be, and perhaps even some of the wealthiest among us share that wish, it's not going to happen. It's not because the only way to accomplish that legislatively is to mandate that citizens, upon reaching a stipulated level of wealth or net income realization, be subject to sums exceeding the stipulated maximum be transferred to individuals who have not reached the stipulated level. The percentage of the polity that wants that is, I suspect, somewhere in the single digits to tens, maybe.​

 

[jillian]

All well and good. The House has passed required budgets for years. It's the DemocRATs in the Senate who have refused to do so for more than 7 years!

such lying loons....

I understand differences in political belief, but the lying lunacy of the right is beyond reason.

first of all, rethuglicans.... hate gubmint and try to kill it by defunding anything that's decent. you hacks have the white house, the senate and congress.... you idiots told us to go screw ourselves for eight years and now you're whining that we don't want to play with you?



maybe if you stopped cutting rich people's taxes and then telling us there's no money for anything that is decent and in the public interest?

while giving tax cuts for private jets. until then I'm ok with them telling you to screw yourselves.

 

[usmbguest5318]

All well and good. The House has passed required budgets for years. It's the DemocRATs in the Senate who have refused to do so for more than 7 years!

such lying loons....

I understand differences in political belief, but the lying lunacy of the right is beyond reason.

first of all, rethuglicans.... hate gubmint and try to kill it by defunding anything that's decent. you hacks have the white house, the senate and congress.... you idiots told us to go screw ourselves for eight years and now you're whining that we don't want to play with you?



maybe if you stopped cutting rich people's taxes and then telling us there's no money for anything that is decent and in the public interest?

while giving tax cuts for private jets. until then I'm ok with them telling you to screw yourselves.

Off Topic:

you idiots told us to go screw ourselves for eight years and now you're whining that we don't want to play with you?

With regard to what situations/matters do people actually behave in accordance with that mindset? AFAK, only politics and playgrounds. That said, I cannot deny the verity of the obduracy we for what six (?), seven (?), eight (?) years observed from Republicans.​

 

[usmbguest5318]

Congress' job is to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

Congress' job is to pay the debts

Actually, it's not. Payment execution is an executive branch function, except for obligations Congress incurs expressly in connection with operating Congress.

Examples of things that fall into that category include maintenance contracts for the grounds of the Capitol, maintenance and refurbishment of Congressional property, Congressional member and staff payrolls, etc. That said, even for such obligations that are Congress' alone, Congress often delegates the payment execution function to the Executive Branch.

The general procure-to-pay process of governments, all of them, consists of the following activities/responsibilities:

1. Executive --> Funding authorization requests
2. Legislature --> Funding authorization
3. Executive --> Funds acquisition and management/administration
4. Executive --> Goods and services procurement in pursuit of stipulated objectives
5. Executive --> Funds disbursement to suppliers of goods and services (this is payment execution)
6. Executive --> Performance measurement and analysis

provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

That is such a broad statement that it is rightly construed as being the responsibility of every federal government employee.

Actually, the social Power to Tax is given to Congress to pay the debts. Why do you need to quibble?

Off Topic:

Why do you need to quibble?

What you call quibbling, I call discursive accuracy borne of integrity/maturity. There simply is no need to make factually inaccurate assertion about something that is readily confirmed.

I don't mind that you may have different POV from me on matters that are indeed debatable/subjective, although it's nice if you don't. I mind that you (or anyone) made materially inaccurate, given the thread context -- that of what is and isn't the job of Congress as goes its role in government budgeting and spending processes -- remarks. I despise and refute such remarks because someone who doesn't know the topic well may read such factually inaccurate remarks and take them as accurate, and, in turn, make an remark that relies on the inaccurate statement's inaccuracy, which, of course, that reader/responder doesn't know is accurate. I'm sure you can imagine how that produces a "stream" of confusion that can turn a thread into a calamitous "waterfall" of BS having nothing to do with the thread topic.​

 

[Circe]

WTH is that?

I can never tell what posts you are replying to. But I am interested. If you could quote the lines of disagreement (or agreement) or at least the post number, that would be relevant.

 

[Circe]

Off Topic:

​

You have written three posts labeled "off topic," but not labeled to whom they are addressed. It would be quite interesting to know whom you are addressing, and what post. As stated above.

 

[usmbguest5318]

WTH is that?

I can never tell what posts you are replying to. But I am interested. If you could quote the lines of disagreement (or agreement) or at least the post number, that would be relevant.​

OT:

I can never tell what posts you are replying to.

Really?

​

I tend to reply to specific remarks in other members' posts. I use the single quoting feature to isolate a small section of a post to which I'm responding and then I type my response/thoughts that were catalyzed by that particular passage. In the image above you'll see in post 25 that I have include the entirety of Daniel's post and "single quoted" the term "social Power to Tax" and asked "WTH is that?" I did so because I didn't/don't currently have anything I cared to say about the part of his post that contains the "social Power to Tax" term; I didn't/don't because I have no idea what that term means. I know quite well what the Constitutional power to tax is.

In post 26, the only part of Wry Catcher's comments upon which I cared to comment is the passage I "single" quoted. As with Daniel's post, I included above the "single quote" the entirety of Wry Cather's post.

I use the approach I've just described to make very clear to the poster to whom I respond exactly which of their remarks I'm replying to and so that anyone who wants to can read the whole post from which the "single quoted" passage is taken and see that though I've isolated but a bit of a larger post, that (when/if I'm offering a refutation of some sort) the passage I've "single quoted" is in some way a key component (usually a premise or inference) of the other member's argument. I do that because I'm not the sort who'll see a minor point with which I take some measure of exception, and therefore bother to take exception with the member's conclusion(s).

What's a "minor point?" It's any premise or inference that, were it shown to be untrue (or in the case of an inductive argument, preponderantly untrue, unlikely to be true, or true only in exceptional circumstances and the context of the conclusion/discussion isn't about those exceptional circumstances), the conclusion that depends on it is not sound/cogent.


Note:

• On occasion, I embolden or in some other way highlight a portion of a "single quoted" passage. I do that to inform readers that my remarks that follow the passage are focused mostly (but not necessarily exclusively) on the emboldened words. To wit: CDZ - This is how to end this gov't shutdown fiasco.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Off Topic:

​

You have written three posts labeled "off topic," but not labeled to whom they are addressed. It would be quite interesting to know whom you are addressing, and what post. As stated above.​

OT:

As goes the post from which you "single quoted" my statement "off-topic," the off topic content is everything that is quoted and that I wrote that is indented and below the words "off topic." (More often, I abbreviate off-topic as follows: OT.)

Why did I do that? Because nobody's quibbling -- real or perceived -- is the topic of the thread. Similarly, my explication of the organizational layout of my composition isn't the thread topic. I also include an off-topic section header so that readers who care to read only posts that do pertain to the thread topic will know they can skip that post and miss out on nothing having to do with the actual thread topic.

The only person whose remarks are in the post are Daniel's, so to whom else's remarks might the "off topic" label applied? Did you not realize that "Off Topic" is nothing other than a section heading?​

 

[Circe]

WTH is that?

I can never tell what posts you are replying to. But I am interested. If you could quote the lines of disagreement (or agreement) or at least the post number, that would be relevant.​

OT:

I can never tell what posts you are replying to.

Really?

View attachment 173158
​

I tend to reply to specific remarks in other members' posts. I use the single quoting feature to isolate a small section of a post to which I'm responding and then I type my response/thoughts that were catalyzed by that particular passage. In the image above you'll see in post 25 that I have include the entirety of Daniel's post and "single quoted" the term "social Power to Tax" and asked "WTH is that?" I did so because I didn't/don't currently have anything I cared to say about the part of his post that contains the "social Power to Tax" term; I didn't/don't because I have no idea what that term means. I know quite well what the Constitutional power to tax is.

In post 26, the only part of Wry Catcher's comments upon which I cared to comment is the passage I "single" quoted. As with Daniel's post, I included above the "single quote" the entirety of Wry Cather's post.

I use the approach I've just described to make very clear to the poster to whom I respond exactly which of their remarks I'm replying to and so that anyone who wants to can read the whole post from which the "single quoted" passage is taken and see that though I've isolated but a bit of a larger post, that (when/if I'm offering a refutation of some sort) the passage I've "single quoted" is in some way a key component (usually a premise or inference) of the other member's argument. I do that because I'm not the sort who'll see a minor point with which I take some measure of exception, and therefore bother to take exception with the member's conclusion(s).

What's a "minor point?" It's any premise or inference that, were it shown to be untrue (or in the case of an inductive argument, preponderantly untrue, unlikely to be true, or true only in exceptional circumstances and the context of the conclusion/discussion isn't about those exceptional circumstances), the conclusion that depends on it is not sound/cogent.


Note:

• On occasion, I embolden or in some other way highlight a portion of a "single quoted" passage. I do that to inform readers that my remarks that follow the passage are focused mostly (but not necessarily exclusively) on the emboldened words. To wit: CDZ - This is how to end this gov't shutdown fiasco.

Off Topic:

​

You have written three posts labeled "off topic," but not labeled to whom they are addressed. It would be quite interesting to know whom you are addressing, and what post. As stated above.​

OT:

As goes the post from which you "single quoted" my statement "off-topic," the off topic content is everything that is quoted and that I wrote that is indented and below the words "off topic." (More often, I abbreviate off-topic as follows: OT.)

Why did I do that? Because nobody's quibbling -- real or perceived -- is the topic of the thread. Similarly, my explication of the organizational layout of my composition isn't the thread topic. I also include an off-topic section header so that readers who care to read only posts that do pertain to the thread topic will know they can skip that post and miss out on nothing having to do with the actual thread topic.

The only person whose remarks are in the post are Daniel's, so to whom else's remarks might the "off topic" label applied? Did you not realize that "Off Topic" is nothing other than a section heading?​

Maybe it's my problem because I put some people on ignore. All I am seeing is the heading "Off Topic" in several posts and no quotes by you. Just your text. You seem to be saying that you have quoted in those posts, so --- it could be that I'm not picking that up. Okay, sorry if that's it, could be.

 

[danielpalos]

Capitalism involves voluntary social transactions that may involve mutually beneficial trade.

Socialism provides recourse to social Power, to compel.

 

[usmbguest5318]

WTH is that?

I can never tell what posts you are replying to. But I am interested. If you could quote the lines of disagreement (or agreement) or at least the post number, that would be relevant.​

OT:

I can never tell what posts you are replying to.

Really?

View attachment 173158
​

I tend to reply to specific remarks in other members' posts. I use the single quoting feature to isolate a small section of a post to which I'm responding and then I type my response/thoughts that were catalyzed by that particular passage. In the image above you'll see in post 25 that I have include the entirety of Daniel's post and "single quoted" the term "social Power to Tax" and asked "WTH is that?" I did so because I didn't/don't currently have anything I cared to say about the part of his post that contains the "social Power to Tax" term; I didn't/don't because I have no idea what that term means. I know quite well what the Constitutional power to tax is.

In post 26, the only part of Wry Catcher's comments upon which I cared to comment is the passage I "single" quoted. As with Daniel's post, I included above the "single quote" the entirety of Wry Cather's post.

I use the approach I've just described to make very clear to the poster to whom I respond exactly which of their remarks I'm replying to and so that anyone who wants to can read the whole post from which the "single quoted" passage is taken and see that though I've isolated but a bit of a larger post, that (when/if I'm offering a refutation of some sort) the passage I've "single quoted" is in some way a key component (usually a premise or inference) of the other member's argument. I do that because I'm not the sort who'll see a minor point with which I take some measure of exception, and therefore bother to take exception with the member's conclusion(s).

What's a "minor point?" It's any premise or inference that, were it shown to be untrue (or in the case of an inductive argument, preponderantly untrue, unlikely to be true, or true only in exceptional circumstances and the context of the conclusion/discussion isn't about those exceptional circumstances), the conclusion that depends on it is not sound/cogent.


Note:

• On occasion, I embolden or in some other way highlight a portion of a "single quoted" passage. I do that to inform readers that my remarks that follow the passage are focused mostly (but not necessarily exclusively) on the emboldened words. To wit: CDZ - This is how to end this gov't shutdown fiasco.

Off Topic:

​

You have written three posts labeled "off topic," but not labeled to whom they are addressed. It would be quite interesting to know whom you are addressing, and what post. As stated above.​

OT:

As goes the post from which you "single quoted" my statement "off-topic," the off topic content is everything that is quoted and that I wrote that is indented and below the words "off topic." (More often, I abbreviate off-topic as follows: OT.)

Why did I do that? Because nobody's quibbling -- real or perceived -- is the topic of the thread. Similarly, my explication of the organizational layout of my composition isn't the thread topic. I also include an off-topic section header so that readers who care to read only posts that do pertain to the thread topic will know they can skip that post and miss out on nothing having to do with the actual thread topic.

The only person whose remarks are in the post are Daniel's, so to whom else's remarks might the "off topic" label applied? Did you not realize that "Off Topic" is nothing other than a section heading?​

Maybe it's my problem because I put some people on ignore. All I am seeing is the heading "Off Topic" in several posts and no quotes by you. Just your text. You seem to be saying that you have quoted in those posts, so --- it could be that I'm not picking that up. Okay, sorry if that's it, could be.

Maybe it's my problem because I put some people on ignore.

That is almost certainly what's happening. That happens to me occasionally. You quite l likely have opted to ignore someone who's not yet earned my disregard.

 

[Circe]

I mainly put people on ignore if they are obscene insult posters. Now THERE is an example of the "Great Unwashed" that we were talking about a while back. I'm going to have to remember that their posts go invisible and that may cause me confusion.

 

[usmbguest5318]

OT:

I mainly put people on ignore if they are obscene insult posters. Now THERE is an example of the "Great Unwashed" that we were talking about a while back. I'm going to have to remember that their posts go invisible and that may cause me confusion.

I mainly put people on ignore if they are obscene insult posters. Now THERE is an example of the "Great Unwashed" that we were talking about a while back.

Yes, well, on my ignore list, obscene insulters have at least one other genre of "great unwashed" keeping them company. LOL​

 

[flacaltenn]

For all the "who struck John" about the current government shutdown, the inescapable fact of the matter is that the root reason the government has shutdown is because the members of the 115th Congress have shirked their duty to pass a regular appropriations bill.

NOW you have an issue with that? It's just THIS Congress? Nope.. Go look at the record of passing a REAL COMPLETE package. The ineptness, complacency, and irresponsibility have been the rigor du jour for over a decade now..

 

[Circe]

The ineptness, complacency, and irresponsibility have been the rigor du jour for over a decade now..

Since Carter, I read. 14 shutdowns so far, IIRC. It's very definitely a bad sign for a continuing government, in my opinion. We have had a surprisingly long run and are way overdue for a major political upheaval, by the standards of any other major country. Not to even bother mentioning the minor ones.