Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 54

Thread: Presidential vendettas

  1. #31
    Join Date
    10-20-03
    Posts
    15,885
    Without 60 votes in the Senate nothing passes. The Repubs did not have the 60, thems the cold hard facts. You can soap box it all you want but until we get a major turnover of the idiots we now have in Congress, things are never going to change. The Dems are Anti Trump, anti repub and anti American, in my book. Illegal immigrants are favored more than a balanced budget as well as keeping the welfare flowing to the poor to get votes.

    We ar epretty much doomed until we get term limits in place and the old guard of fools out of Congress. Facts, all of them.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    10-23-01
    Posts
    17,114
    Wrong again, Tx.

    The present budget was passed in the Senate 51-49 (simple majority). Every Republican voted for it and every Democrat voted against it. Trump signed it.

    No 60 vote majority needed, Tx.

    At the end of the debates and amendments, the Senate narrowly voted 51–49 to pass the fiscal year 2018 budget. All 48 Senate Democrats and Senator Rand Paul voted no. As the proposed tax legislation had lacked appropriations measures, the Senate's passage of the 2018 budget was interpreted as "paving the way" for a tax bill.[23
    Poke here

  3. #33
    Join Date
    10-23-01
    Posts
    17,114
    Illegal immigrants are favored more than a balanced budget as well as keeping the welfare flowing to the poor to get votes.
    Do you even read your own posts? A minute ago, you admitted that running massive deficits was OK as long as it kept the Democrats out of power. As long as it got votes for Republicans, you were OK with deficits. Now, you are against them?

    Kinda like Trump - he was for gun control before he was against it, all in the space of one day.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    10-23-01
    Posts
    17,114
    I just checked the vote counts for the 2018 budget.

    The House voted 211 - 198 to send the bill to the Senate. Only 1 Democrat voted for the budget. 184 Democrats voted no. 14 Republicans voted no, 210 voted yes.

    The Senate made changes and eventually voted 51- 49 to pass the budget during reconciliation, where there is no filibuster and a simple majority rules. No Democrat voted for the reconciliation bill. One Republican (Rand Paul) voted against it.

    The reconciled bill was then submitted to the House. The vote was 256 to 167. This vote was more evenly split. My guess is by that time, no one wanted to shut down the government.

    There wasn't any compromising done with Democrats to get this budget passed. The Republicans rammed it through using legislative techniques designed to circumvent any filibuster in the Senate. The majority they hold in the House ensured that they did not have to consider compromise either. The only compromising was done within the Republican party. Note the fact that the bill got exactly 1 Democrat vote before reconciliation and once the bill goes to reconciliation, the game is over.

    Republicans own this one, folks.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    10-20-03
    Posts
    15,885
    Maybe my eyes are wrong so I posted this from your own link about the real and latest budget.
    As of January 19, 2018, the Extension of Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018 (H.R. 195) was under consideration to extend funding through February 16, 2018. The failure of the bill to pass the Senate lead to the United States federal government shutdown of 2018.


    On Friday, February 9, funding lapsed again at midnight after Senator Rand Paul delayed the vote on the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, which included another continuing resolution, by objecting to measures requiring unanimous consent to expedite the parliamentary process. In addition, its passage was uncertain in the House due to opposition by both fiscal conservatives who objected to the increased deficit spending, and by liberals who opposed the omission of a DACA provision.[27][28] However, it passed the Senate 71–28 and the House 240–186 after midnight, and President Trump signed the bill early that morning, prior to when furloughs were to begin. In all, the funding gap lasted nine hours.[29]



    On the evening of March 21, 2018, the text of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018[30] was released, with Congress expecting to approve it within two days.[31]
    I have been talking about the omnibus spending bill that was just passed. I do not have a clue as to what you are rattling on about.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    10-23-01
    Posts
    17,114
    Its the difference between a budget resolution and the appropriations necessary to fund that resolution.

    You are talking about the appropriations to fund the budget. I'm talking about the resolution that defined the budget itself. The spending priorities were decided in the resolution. The appropriations bill just funds those priorities.

    Gotta make the fine distinctions, Tx. They are the soul of debate.

    And you still haven't answered why your conservative principles were for sale. You were against a budget deficit until it might cost your team power, then you were for them. Then you were against them in a subsequent post. I can't tell which side of the debate you are on. You seem to be on every side.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    04-29-17
    Posts
    7,516
    Texas m why don't you just quit being Kevin's punching bag. It's Insanity you're not going to ever win an argument with him he is fully entrenched in his View as are you so just let the rocket burn out its fuse.
    OPINION....a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    10-20-03
    Posts
    15,885
    I am, whenever he gets to this point I just quit the conversation.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    02-02-04
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    16,344
    Quote Originally Posted by TxMusky View Post
    I am, whenever he gets to this point I just quit the conversation.
    maybe s you should have quit when you stated they have to vote everything under cloture rules

    bumpersticker by NT Candy, on Flickr

  10. #40
    Join Date
    04-29-17
    Posts
    7,516
    The Parliamentary rules in United States Congress are ridiculous and are designed to cause turmoil and dissension. That is why it is a swamp that is why it is dysfunctional that is why I detest the process. They're not there for us they're there for themselves. Makes me want to puke
    OPINION....a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    10-20-03
    Posts
    15,885
    They should also have line item veto too, that way additions that get tossed in that very few like get thrown in the trash. That way when a bill comes up to be voted on, they know that if something is not liked by the POTUS, he can draw a line through it and move on. Yes I know that it would make it dicey for whatever party was in power in the WH, but that too would sort itself out when the voters started getting serious about who they send to govern the Country. No more "firsts" just to be a first. No more jokers with big mouths and unlimited camera time and MSM support getting a job they are nowhere near qualified for.

    Career politicians would go away after the term limit kicked in and no more "good old boy" alliances that last decades to get things done. A fresh new change every election cycle would get them focused on the job they are there to do and stop making it into some kind of game that the American people get screwed by.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    02-02-04
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    16,344
    line item veto was tested by SCOTUS as unconstitutional. Checks and balances, TX.

    bumpersticker by NT Candy, on Flickr

  13. #43
    Join Date
    12-21-17
    Posts
    872
    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndthyme View Post
    line item veto was tested by SCOTUS as unconstitutional. Checks and balances, TX.
    However, by sending the rescinded part of the bill back to Congress for an expedited up or down vote, our “line-item veto with a twist” complies with the Presentment Clause of the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s ruling.

    Clinton v. City of New York...........

  14. #44
    Join Date
    02-02-04
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    16,344
    Quote Originally Posted by Dork View Post
    However, by sending the rescinded part of the bill back to Congress for an expedited up or down vote, our “line-item veto with a twist” complies with the Presentment Clause of the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s ruling.

    Clinton v. City of New York...........
    https://www.nolabels.org/understandi...-with-a-twist/

    wow,, you lifted that word for word straight from the google summary of the no label site.. can you explain it in your own words lol

    bumpersticker by NT Candy, on Flickr

  15. #45
    Join Date
    10-20-03
    Posts
    15,885
    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndthyme View Post
    line item veto was tested by SCOTUS as unconstitutional. Checks and balances, TX.
    So does this mean that you are okay with having a bunch of pork added by any person in congress as a means of extortion to get their vote? I don't. The Constitution sets out guidelines for what those elected to Congress are supposed to be doing there and what their jobs entail. Throughout the years Congress has perverted their job limits and overstepped their boundaries by adding all sorts of different things that are now their main focus, instead of what their original job duties were when the Constitution was written.

    Where are these checks and balances you speak of? There are none, Congress is a group of unrestrained monsters roaming the Country, devouring and destroying just about everything they touch. We need term limits and the line item veto to make sure there actually are checks and balances.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •