He's a closet psycho. It takes a long time to draw him out into the light. But once you have, you know - like an epiphany. I have literally wondered for years why people take even a minute out of their day to "discuss" anything with him. He argues just for the sake of arguing.
I also wonder how he holds down a job. He says he has one. He posts all day every day in here with the only pause being to Google and Wiki for information.
http://www.stimulatingbroadband.com/2011/03/ntia-rus-say-unspent-broadband-stimulus.html
Note that money allocated for specific programs was returned to the general fund. That by definition means it was not spent. Money was allocated, money was not spent.
http://quincyjournal.com/regional-b...s-unspent-office-funds-to-treasury1371875107/
Again, money was allocated, money was not spent. The Impoundment Act prevents the President from subverting the will of Congress by defunding programs he does not like; it does not mean that money allocated must be spent. This would be significant IF we had any spending bills passed; we do not.
Once again, nobody is honestly this stupid.
According to this http://www.independentsector.org/senate_fy_2014_budget_resolution
the Senate FY2014 budget is for $3.7 trillion, of which $1.241 trillion is deficit spending. Ignoring for a moment that this is $100 billion above the FY2014 baseline, that leaves $2.459 trillion in mandatory spending. The protected deficit is $692 billion. For the math challenged, $3.7 trillion minus $0.692 trillion = $3.008 trillion projected income, which leaves $549 billion for discretionary spending assuming that Congress rescinds no mandatory spending (which it is free to do legislatively) or institutes no tax increases. Ergo we have $549 billion for discretionary spending before the debt limit HAS to go up. The Ryan budget is a few percent lower on revenue, so the cuts to discretionary spending would arguably be more draconian.
Laughing at myself for getting once again drawn into an argument with a guy who is simultaneously arguing that the debt ceiling is immaterial and that it's the end of the world if we don't immediately raise it.
He's a closet psycho. It takes a long time to draw him out into the light. But once you have, you know - like an epiphany. I have literally wondered for years why people take even a minute out of their day to "discuss" anything with him. He argues just for the sake of arguing.
I also wonder how he holds down a job. He says he has one. He posts all day every day in here with the only pause being to Google and Wiki for information.
We all knew one like him in school. The kid that could not develop any friendships because he had an insurmountable character flaw that precluded it. The know-it-all. Always "knew" more, always did it better, faster, longer - insert appropriate adjective to suit. You finally learned to just avoid him because it was so damned tiring to have to listen to the constant bragging.
I always wondered what eventually became of them. I now know. They become progressives.
http://www.stimulatingbroadband.com/2011/03/ntia-rus-say-unspent-broadband-stimulus.html
Note that money allocated for specific programs was returned to the general fund. That by definition means it was not spent. Money was allocated, money was not spent.
http://quincyjournal.com/regional-b...s-unspent-office-funds-to-treasury1371875107/
Again, money was allocated, money was not spent. The Impoundment Act prevents the President from subverting the will of Congress by defunding programs he does not like; it does not mean that money allocated must be spent. This would be significant IF we had any spending bills passed; we do not.
Once again, nobody is honestly this stupid.
According to this http://www.independentsector.org/senate_fy_2014_budget_resolution
the Senate FY2014 budget is for $3.7 trillion, of which $1.241 trillion is deficit spending. Ignoring for a moment that this is $100 billion above the FY2014 baseline, that leaves $2.459 trillion in mandatory spending. The protected deficit is $692 billion. For the math challenged, $3.7 trillion minus $0.692 trillion = $3.008 trillion projected income, which leaves $549 billion for discretionary spending assuming that Congress rescinds no mandatory spending (which it is free to do legislatively) or institutes no tax increases. Ergo we have $549 billion for discretionary spending before the debt limit HAS to go up. The Ryan budget is a few percent lower on revenue, so the cuts to discretionary spending would arguably be more draconian.
Laughing at myself for getting once again drawn into an argument with a guy who is simultaneously arguing that the debt ceiling is immaterial and that it's the end of the world if we don't immediately raise it.
Not to mention the gigantic straw man of misrepresenting eskimo's position as "debt ceiling is immaterial."This is an amazing amount of fail. So funds legally obligated to be spent won't be because...a fraction could be sent back to the general fund based on a couple examples that, seemingly, you're meaning to apply to the government as a whole in a vain attempt to argue, um, what again about the debt ceiling? Your logic is so circuitous it's truly confusing.
Such assumptions you make grasshopper.I find it funny that you don't see the irony in your post - here you are, posting all day, every day, saying you hold down a job, with the same type of responses tilted towards your side instead of his, yet you cannot look in the mirror to see the same traits you find to be "psycho" in others exist within yourself.
a quick question on the powers of the speaker of the house:
so, as i understand, only the speaker can bring an issue to vote? he has absolute power over that?
can a simple majority of the congressmen bring an issue to vote?
since they seem to have a simple majority supporting an interim halt of the shutdown, why is it not happening?
thanks.
a quick question on the powers of the speaker of the house:
so, as i understand, only the speaker can bring an issue to vote? he has absolute power over that?
can a simple majority of the congressmen bring an issue to vote?
since they seem to have a simple majority supporting an interim halt of the shutdown, why is it not happening?
thanks.
Obama needs to lead us through this mess...I believe that's what Presidents normally do during difficult times.They're now talking about a short term solution just to avoid a default and get the government open? "Kicking the can". Why can't they actually lead!?
I have no desire to convince anyone of anything because my ego does not require it. I have no need to prove any point.
Hahahaahahahahaha wow that's the biggest line of bullshit I've read all day.
I agree. Obama doesn't seem to know how to lead on domestic issues. When he ran for his first term the mantra was good on domestics, ignorant on foreign. His tenure has shown just the opposite, being fairly decent on foreign affairs (hasn't wound down the Bush wars fast enough but otherwise okay) but pathetic on domestic leadership. Where was Obama while Congress wrote the ACA? A bit of leadership might have yielded a plan worth the trouble. Obama doesn't even seem to understand how to leverage his own party to get things done in Congress.Obama needs to lead us through this mess...I believe that's what Presidents normally do during difficult times.
More at link:Late on the night of Sept. 30, with the federal government just hours away from shutting down, House Republicans quietly made a small change to the House rules that blocked a potential avenue for ending the shutdown.
It went largely unnoticed at the time. But with the shutdown more than a week old and House Democrats searching for any legislative wiggle room to end it, the move looms large in retrospect in the minds of the minority party.
"What people don't know is that they rigged the rules of the House to keep the government shut down," Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), ranking member of the House Budget Committee, told TPM in an interview. "This is a blatant effort to make sure that the Senate bill did not come up for a vote."
Here's what happened.
The House and Senate were at an impasse on the night of Sept. 30. The House's then-most-recent ploy for extracting Obamacare concessions from Senate Democrats and the White House -- by eliminating health insurance subsidies for Congress members and their staffs -- had been rejected by the Senate. The 'clean' Senate spending bill was back in the House's court.
With less than two hours to midnight and shutdown, Speaker John Boehner's latest plan emerged. House Republicans would "insist" on their latest spending bill, including the anti-Obamacare provision, and request a conference with the Senate to resolve the two chambers' differences.
Under normal House rules, according to House Democrats, once that bill had been rejected again by the Senate, then any member of the House could have made a motion to vote on the Senate's bill. Such a motion would have been what is called "privileged" and entitled to a vote of the full House. At that point, Democrats say, they could have joined with moderate Republicans in approving the motion and then in passing the clean Senate bill, averting a shutdown.
But previously, House Republicans had made a small but hugely consequential move to block them from doing it.
Here's the rule in question:
When the stage of disagreement has been reached on a bill or resolution with House or Senate amendments, a motion to dispose of any amendment shall be privileged.
In other words, if the House and Senate are gridlocked as they were on the eve of the shutdown, any motion from any member to end that gridlock should be allowed to proceed. Like, for example, a motion to vote on the Senate bill. That's how House Democrats read it.
But the House Rules Committee voted the night of Sept. 30 to change that rule for this specific bill. They added language dictating that any motion "may be offered only by the majority Leader or his designee."
So unless House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) wanted the Senate spending bill to come to the floor, it wasn't going to happen. And it didn't.
Now I see why Republicans were avoiding the budget reconciliation process. But what I don't understand now is why they aren't proceeding with the process since the rule change.So apparently Republicans changed House rules specifically to prevent a vote on the Senate's CR and force the shutdown:
More at link:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/the-house-gop-s-little-rule-change-that-guaranteed-a-shutdown
So apparently Republicans changed House rules specifically to prevent a vote on the Senate's CR and force the shutdown:
More at link:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/the-house-gop-s-little-rule-change-that-guaranteed-a-shutdown
If this is true, I don't support it. Neither side should have that kind of power.
Not even one side, just the leadership of that side.If this is true, I don't support it. Neither side should have that kind of power.
To who?Not even one side, just the leadership of that side.
At this point the House Republicans are not only not doing their job, they are going out of their way to make sure it doesn't get done, and I can only suspect it is because they fear the clean CR will pass. Time to pressure House Republicans for a change in leadership.
So apparently Republicans changed House rules specifically to prevent a vote on the Senate's CR and force the shutdown:
More at link:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/the-house-gop-s-little-rule-change-that-guaranteed-a-shutdown