Why does the House have no say on the budget?

[kaz]

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.

Actually you've never explained how a budget can be passed without it passing the House, which is my question to those of you who who keep saying the House "had" their say. Deflecting questions aren't an answer, my dear.

 

[Contumacious]

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?

Of course I would have opposed it.

I have always objected to slavery , and that is precisely what conscription is.

Now I prefer a volunteer army. I opposed standing armies.

If my country was under attack I wiould definitely fight. Just don't order me to do so.

.

 

[Oldstyle]

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?

Of course I would have opposed it.

I have always objected to slavery , and that is precisely what conscription is.

Now I prefer a volunteer army. I opposed standing armies.

If my country was under attack I wiould definitely fight. Just don't order me to do so.

.

You oppose standing armies? Really? So you think that we can adequately protect ourselves from threat by asking for volunteers in a time of crisis, training them and then deploying them?

You don't know very much about how the military functions...do you, Contumacious?

 

[Seawytch]

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?

Of course I would have opposed it.

I have always objected to slavery , and that is precisely what conscription is.

Now I prefer a volunteer army. I opposed standing armies.

If my country was under attack I wiould definitely fight. Just don't order me to do so.

.

You oppose standing armies? Really? So you think that we can adequately protect ourselves from threat by asking for volunteers in a time of crisis, training them and then deploying them?

You don't know very much about how the military functions...do you, Contumacious?

Where do you think all that crap about militias in the 2nd amendment came from? It stemmed from the desire NOT to have a standing army. Our very first President opposed having a standing army.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

As usual you miss the point completely.

 

[bendog]

I guess at the heart of the issue is Kaz thinks/or spams that somehow mandatory spending must be appropriated on a yearly basis, as is discretionary spending in appropriations bills.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I guess at the heart of the issue is Kaz thinks/or spams that somehow mandatory spending must be appropriated on a yearly basis, as is discretionary spending in appropriations bills.

Perhaps Kaz, like me, thinks there should be no such thing as "mandatory spending", and everything about the federal government, its spending, and it's power over our lives should be volitional, reviewed, and thought-about on a regular basis, rather than put on auto-pilot.

My question is, why don't YOU think that?

 

[The T]

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.

Actually you've never explained how a budget can be passed without it passing the House, which is my question to those of you who who keep saying the House "had" their say. Deflecting questions aren't an answer, my dear.

Same way the CR's are being passed now...Senate is trying to control the process...as is the Executive...

NONE have done their jobs and passed a bonafide budget. I can't blame the low ratings of both Houses of the Congress, AND the Executive among the people, and specifically the District of Criminals. The people know it's out of control.

The people want the swamp flushed of ALL members of this corrupted Government, and Constitutional sanity restored.

 

[Contumacious]

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?

Of course I would have opposed it.

I have always objected to slavery , and that is precisely what conscription is.

Now I prefer a volunteer army. I opposed standing armies.

If my country was under attack I wiould definitely fight. Just don't order me to do so.

.

You oppose standing armies? Really? So you think that we can adequately protect ourselves from threat by asking for volunteers in a time of crisis, training them and then deploying them?

You don't know very much about how the military functions...do you, Contumacious?

Standing armies are dangerous to individual liberties.

We can adequately protect ourselves and the country provided that:

1- we cease and desist involving ourselves in the internal affairs of other nations

2- we prevent the scumbags inside the DC beltway from disarming us.

.

 

[bendog]

I guess at the heart of the issue is Kaz thinks/or spams that somehow mandatory spending must be appropriated on a yearly basis, as is discretionary spending in appropriations bills.

Perhaps Kaz, like me, thinks there should be no such thing as "mandatory spending", and everything about the federal government, its spending, and it's power over our lives should be volitional, reviewed, and thought-about on a regular basis, rather than put on auto-pilot.

My question is, why don't YOU think that?

Because I believe in governing by an established set of rules. Though I accept as reality you'd like to end entitlements, but you'll never be able to win electorally on that, so you attempt to subvert the legislative process by seeking new rules.

 

[Contumacious]

I guess at the heart of the issue is Kaz thinks/or spams that somehow mandatory spending must be appropriated on a yearly basis, as is discretionary spending in appropriations bills.

Perhaps Kaz, like me, thinks there should be no such thing as "mandatory spending", and everything about the federal government, its spending, and it's power over our lives should be volitional, reviewed, and thought-about on a regular basis, rather than put on auto-pilot.

My question is, why don't YOU think that?

Because I believe in governing by an established set of rules.

which consists of creating a parasitic faction; making them addicted to federal largesse and then making sure that they vote early and often

 

[NYcarbineer]

I guess at the heart of the issue is Kaz thinks/or spams that somehow mandatory spending must be appropriated on a yearly basis, as is discretionary spending in appropriations bills.

Perhaps Kaz, like me, thinks there should be no such thing as "mandatory spending", and everything about the federal government, its spending, and it's power over our lives should be volitional, reviewed, and thought-about on a regular basis, rather than put on auto-pilot.

My question is, why don't YOU think that?

If you had enough votes for that, you could have it. You conservatives just can't accept that you're a minority, can you?

 

[kaz]

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?

As usual you miss the point completely.

True, I don't do well getting spin. Though to be more precise I grasp it fine, I just ignore it.

 

[kaz]

I guess at the heart of the issue is Kaz thinks/or spams that somehow mandatory spending must be appropriated on a yearly basis, as is discretionary spending in appropriations bills.

Perhaps Kaz, like me, thinks there should be no such thing as "mandatory spending", and everything about the federal government, its spending, and it's power over our lives should be volitional, reviewed, and thought-about on a regular basis, rather than put on auto-pilot.

My question is, why don't YOU think that?

I do think that, cecilie, as you suggest and you do yourself.

Though I am also pointing out there really isn't such a thing as mandatory spending because budgets still have to pass both Houses. "Mandatory" just usually means the current congresses don't have the stones to not fund it, they use that is was "mandatory" as an excuse to not deal with it. This is the first time the Republicans have stepped up to that. They have a long way to go to reach "not sucking" status, but it's a start...

 

[itfitzme]

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.

Why do you pretend the GOP has nothing to do with the deficit?

Most of the budget is non-discretionary spending. After you take all the taxes we collect, and then spend it on non-discretionary spending, there isn't any money left over for an Army Jeep, or a mortgage interest deduction, or a child tax credit.

So go ahead and explain to us how the fiscally responsible GOP managed to double the national debt when they controlled all three branches of government and we are supposed to pretend that never happened.

Why did it take a negro with a D after his name to suddenly make the GOP concerned about spending and deficits?

He shouldn't bother to explain anything to you. You are nothing more than a conceited holyier than thou version of Fake Jake. Your number has been called and nothing but silence was heard in response.

The poster is mostly correct.



Bush I and Clinton were the only two to have presided over a stabilization of spending.

Reagan and Bush II both presided over an increase in defense spending.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I guess at the heart of the issue is Kaz thinks/or spams that somehow mandatory spending must be appropriated on a yearly basis, as is discretionary spending in appropriations bills.

Perhaps Kaz, like me, thinks there should be no such thing as "mandatory spending", and everything about the federal government, its spending, and it's power over our lives should be volitional, reviewed, and thought-about on a regular basis, rather than put on auto-pilot.

My question is, why don't YOU think that?

This is naïve and reactionary, ignorant as to the fundamental rules and processes concerning Congress and how it functions when governing a modern, industrialized Nation in the 21st Century.

 

[itfitzme]

I guess at the heart of the issue is Kaz thinks/or spams that somehow mandatory spending must be appropriated on a yearly basis, as is discretionary spending in appropriations bills.

Perhaps Kaz, like me, thinks there should be no such thing as "mandatory spending", and everything about the federal government, its spending, and it's power over our lives should be volitional, reviewed, and thought-about on a regular basis, rather than put on auto-pilot.

My question is, why don't YOU think that?

The mandatory spending programs include Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and the Disability Insurance (DI). These are what we typically know as Social Security Insurance and Medicare Part D. The funding from these are from FICA taxes. These are self funded programs that "for which lawmakers set eligibility rules and benefit formulas." So, they are " reviewed, and thought-about on a regular basis".

I find this on the Wiki;

"However, portions of the budgets for several other departments, including the Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, Department of Education, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, include some mandatory spending."

I also saw a comment about Medicaid being manditory.

This is a details article on manditory spending.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33074.pdf

The difference is that mandatory spending is set by law while discretionary spending is set by appropriations. To change mandatory spending requires and act of Congress.

Other mandatory spending programs include Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF),
Supplemental Security Income (SSI), unemployment insurance, some veterans’ benefits, federal
employee retirement and disability, and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

It looks like UI has a tax specifically associated with it.

Medicare part B and D are discretionary.

Because there is the cross-over where some mandatory spending has a specific tax and trust fund; some mandatory spending apparently does not include a specific tax; some discretionary spending is on social programs like Medicare, I don't find the categories of "mandatory" and "discretionary" spending particularly useful. Except for the difference in one being by law and the other being appropriated, the two categories don't really mean much more.

Here is a graph that separates out the discretionary spending by category. (real dollars per capita. Obviously, things go up due to inflation and population growth.)

 

[candycorn]

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.

Actually you've never explained how a budget can be passed without it passing the House, which is my question to those of you who who keep saying the House "had" their say. Deflecting questions aren't an answer, my dear.

Here is the "question" you're asking...

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.

The republicans do have a say; they're not funding the laws passed. The Democrats have a say too, they're not letting the republicans only open parts of the government their caucus likes.

Since "according to the Constitution, spending bills have to pass the house" and the spending bills are to fund the laws passed...the House isn't doing it's job if it's not allocating money for what it passed.

It's as simple as that...even you should be able to understand it. But of course, that's not the question you're asking...feel free to keep up the charade.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kaz wrote: "Why does the House have no say on the budget? I keep asking liberals this and not getting an answer."

Out right Kaz fabrication. Sane mainstream Republicans have told you repeatedly the black man won (twice), Congress approved and the Senate opined on Obamacare.

You don't get to go back and revisit your loss. This is over.

 

[candycorn]

I guess at the heart of the issue is Kaz thinks/or spams that somehow mandatory spending must be appropriated on a yearly basis, as is discretionary spending in appropriations bills.

Perhaps Kaz, like me, thinks there should be no such thing as "mandatory spending", and everything about the federal government, its spending, and it's power over our lives should be volitional, reviewed, and thought-about on a regular basis, rather than put on auto-pilot.

My question is, why don't YOU think that?

This is naïve and reactionary, ignorant as to the fundamental rules and processes concerning Congress and how it functions when governing a modern, industrialized Nation in the 21st Century.

So what is the point of government if the House doesn't fun what it passed in the previous Congresses? Are we going to have to re-legislate every law passed since the inception every 2 years so THIS House can validate the program.