Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The point is, after Citizens' United, it's basically a race to get the richest "donors" to amass the greatest "campaign fund"


The Koch brothers, Super PACs and the like are pretty much the very definition of special interest, especially since they can now pump basically unlimited money into a campaign. I'd call that buying a vote.

If you mean buying the votes of the electorate then yeah, Citizens United pretty much instituted unlimited spending on political ads but in terms of buying the vote of the representative in Congress, the case you want to cite is McCutcheon.

Yeah... I saw your post too late... The two definitely go hand in hand with each other

Prestor Jon wrote:

It is specifically Congress' job to decide what is in the budget, what gets funded and what doesn't get funded. That's what a budget is, after all. If Congress does their job and creates and passes a budget, then they've done their job. If the President chooses to veto that budget, that's on the President.

As has already been stated: What if Congress passes a budget it knows the President will veto? Is it really trying to pass a budget, or is it trying to avoid taking responsibility?

Prestor Jon wrote:

If a majority of the electorate doesn't want Planned Parenthood to be defunded then it should be very difficult or impossible for Congress to pass a budget that defunds Planned Parenthood because doing so would cause many of the representatives who voted for it to lose their re-election bids.

A minor issue like Planned Parenthood funding isn't going to cost anyone an election. In a few months the only people who remember that there was any sort of controversy will be pro-life activists, and they certainly won't going to vote for anyone who might defend Planned Parenthood.

So if funding Planned Parenthood is such a minor issue, POTUS would indeed be petty to veto a whole budget because of it.

Glad you folks can recognize that.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Of course, I recognize that unfortunately in our current state of politics that the representatives in Congress don't always care about the will of the people (especially since SCOTUS ruled its ok for special interests to buy their votes, thanks Roberts!) and that the people tend to do a poor job of holding their representatives accountable (everyone disaproves of Congress but incumbents keep getting re-elected).

Of course everyone disapproves of Congress, the vast majority of legislators aren't there to represent you; they're there to represent their constituents.

 CptJake wrote:
So if funding Planned Parenthood is such a minor issue, POTUS would indeed be petty to veto a whole budget because of it.

Glad you folks can recognize that.

Just as petty as Congressional conservatives, and their supporters, for desperately trying to make it an issue.

Except, again, it IS the congress critter's job to do the budget. Majority party is gonna fund/not fund accordingly.

So why is the POTUS even required to submit a budget since he suddenly has zero say on the matter?

 d-usa wrote:
So why is the POTUS even required to submit a budget since he suddenly has zero say on the matter?

He isn't. The president can veto the budget or sign it into law. If POTUS vetos the budget Congress can override the veto if there are enough votes. If POTUS vetos the budget and Congress doesn't have enough votes to override the veto then Congress and POTUS need to compromise on what the final budget will be. How that particular game of political chicken works out depends on the parties involved, the media spin and the will of the electorate.

POTUS can't submit a budget or any legislation, that has to be initiated by the legislative branch. POTUS can publicize a budget to try to establish an agenda or certain parameters for the budget or POTUS can get an ally in Congress to submit the budget as a proxy.

 CptJake wrote:
Except, again, it IS the congress critter's job to do the budget. Majority party is gonna fund/not fund accordingly.

While it may be part of their job to do the budget, another part of their job is to fulfill the wishes of the people.... And if surveys are anything to go by, only 30% of Americans want Planned Parenthood axed.

 dogma wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

It is specifically Congress' job to decide what is in the budget, what gets funded and what doesn't get funded. That's what a budget is, after all. If Congress does their job and creates and passes a budget, then they've done their job. If the President chooses to veto that budget, that's on the President.

As has already been stated: What if Congress passes a budget it knows the President will veto? Is it really trying to pass a budget, or is it trying to avoid taking responsibility?

Prestor Jon wrote:

If a majority of the electorate doesn't want Planned Parenthood to be defunded then it should be very difficult or impossible for Congress to pass a budget that defunds Planned Parenthood because doing so would cause many of the representatives who voted for it to lose their re-election bids.

A minor issue like Planned Parenthood funding isn't going to cost anyone an election. In a few months the only people who remember that there was any sort of controversy will be pro-life activists, and they certainly won't going to vote for anyone who might defend Planned Parenthood.

Congress is required to create a budget that can get passed in the House and Senate and get to the President's desk. Whether or not the President will veto the budget is entirely dependent on the President and the desires of the President only impact the passage of the budget through Congress to the extent that they influence the votes of representatives. Getting hundreds of representatives to agree on the budget is difficult enough without adding in misplaced priority on the hypothetical potential of a Presidential veto. There are budget items far more important to given states and constituencies than Planned Parenthood that have to be ironed out and compromised on to get through Congress. There's a lot of horse trading that goes on and items that get passed by slim majorities and representatives in Congress may not be willing to jeopardize those items for the sake of defunding Planned Parenthood of the margin for defunding PP is slim.

 d-usa wrote:
So why is the POTUS even required to submit a budget since he suddenly has zero say on the matter?

Who requires him to do so? It surely is not designated in Article II of the Constitution.


So in 1974 the congress critters decided to make POTUS submit a proposal, which is the starting point for the congressional budget process. They are under no obligation to fund what POTUS asks for. As I said earlier, POTUS does not get to decide what is and is not funded. And that is the way it is supposed to be.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Except, again, it IS the congress critter's job to do the budget. Majority party is gonna fund/not fund accordingly.

While it may be part of their job to do the budget, another part of their job is to fulfill the wishes of the people.... And if surveys are anything to go by, only 30% of Americans want Planned Parenthood axed.

Since when does the congressional critters dictate their actions by the polls?

Obamacare, by and large, was and is unpopular:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

Yet it's still here...

The Iran #whateverobamacallsit Deal is vastly unpopular...

Yet, it's going'n to happen...

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Except, again, it IS the congress critter's job to do the budget. Majority party is gonna fund/not fund accordingly.

While it may be part of their job to do the budget, another part of their job is to fulfill the wishes of the people.... And if surveys are anything to go by, only 30% of Americans want Planned Parenthood axed.

But the wishes of the people get screwed up when their elected representatives hold an office that they have no problem getting reelected in due to gerrymandering districts. All of a sudden that 30% becomes more like 80% in a particular district, thus the representative is doing the will of his/her district (the district itself is screwed up).

 whembly wrote:

Since when does the congressional critters dictate their actions by the polls?

Obamacare, by and large, was and is unpopular:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

ACA is certainly unpopular. There was a ton of pressure to create "national healthcare" at the time though. In a roundabout way, congress DID do what the polls (and in reality of the extension here: the people) wanted; it just didn't look or perform anything like what the people wanted.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Since when does the congressional critters dictate their actions by the polls?

Obamacare, by and large, was and is unpopular:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

ACA is certainly unpopular. There was a ton of pressure to create "national healthcare" at the time though. In a roundabout way, congress DID do what the polls (and in reality of the extension here: the people) wanted; it just didn't look or perform anything like what the people wanted.

Then they really didn't did they? Politicians may have told people what they wanted to hear but the ACA doesn't actually do most of what was claimed it would do.

Thw ACA was unpopular because it was a compromise between two extremes. Plus all the lies told about it.

In other news, the Republicans are finally starting to admit the real reason for all the Bengazi panels...

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/30/9423339/kevin-mccarthy-benghazi


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thw ACA was unpopular because it was a compromise between two extremes. Plus all the lies told about it.

In other news, the Republicans are finally starting to admit the real reason for all the Bengazi panels...http://www.vox.com/2015/9/30/9423339/kevin-mccarthy-benghazi

 whembly wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Except, again, it IS the congress critter's job to do the budget. Majority party is gonna fund/not fund accordingly.

While it may be part of their job to do the budget, another part of their job is to fulfill the wishes of the people.... And if surveys are anything to go by, only 30% of Americans want Planned Parenthood axed.

Since when does the congressional critters dictate their actions by the polls?

Obamacare, by and large, was and is unpopular:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

Yet it's still here...

The Iran #whateverobamacallsit Deal is vastly unpopular...

Yet, it's going'n to happen...

In many ways, it's the politicians that dictate the results of the polls, you know that. Things are popular or unpopular, not because people studied the facts and made a rational decision, but because they believe what their talking box tells them to believe.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Getting hundreds of representatives to agree on the budget is difficult enough without adding in misplaced priority on the hypothetical potential of a Presidential veto.

How is it a "misplaced priority" to acknowledge that a budget won't be signed into law by the President, and subsequently act in accordance with that fact?

Prestor Jon wrote:

He isn't.

Yes, he is. The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 requires the President to submit a budget request to Congress for each fiscal year.

I think it would be good if they acted period. Let Obama veto it, then work out the bill from there. Try to override or negotiate. Yeah, they perhaps are cutting out a step by knowing Obama might veto it, so they don't vote on it, but at least they would all be on record with their positions (which is probably why they don't do it) and it would at least look like they are doing something.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Could anybody answer this quick question: I've been reading a lot about the history of the 2nd amendment (fascinating subject) and I was wondering if SCOTUS' ruling on the Heller case could be overturned by SCOTUS in the future?

Or is that set in stone?

Thanks.

Nothing is set in stone. Death is just the beginning.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Could anybody answer this quick question: I've been reading a lot about the history of the 2nd amendment (fascinating subject) and I was wondering if SCOTUS' ruling on the Heller case could be overturned by SCOTUS in the future?

Or is that set in stone?

Thanks.

Nothing is set in stone. Death is just the beginning.

That's the beautiful thing about both the Constitution and science--always evolving, never perfect.

 CptJake wrote:
So if funding Planned Parenthood is such a minor issue, POTUS would indeed be petty to veto a whole budget because of it.

Glad you folks can recognize that.

A pox on both their houses. The President is petty and trying to drop the Repugs into a trap, and is willing to harm the nation to do it.
The Repugs are feeding to a base of nattering nabobs, and is willing to harm the nation to do it. until they pass a budget everyone in Washington should have their paychecks frozen. The period of time those paychekcs are frozen that money should go to paying down the debt, no retroactive repays.

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
So if funding Planned Parenthood is such a minor issue, POTUS would indeed be petty to veto a whole budget because of it.

Glad you folks can recognize that.

A pox on both their houses. The President is petty and trying to drop the Repugs into a trap, and is willing to harm the nation to do it.
The Repugs are feeding to a base of nattering nabobs, and is willing to harm the nation to do it. until they pass a budget everyone in Washington should have their paychecks frozen. The period of time those paychekcs are frozen that money should go to paying down the debt, no retroactive repays.

I agree, including the representatives, the president and the military. When the public starts hearing about serving troops not getting paid, black eyes will be dealt. Rightfully so.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
So if funding Planned Parenthood is such a minor issue, POTUS would indeed be petty to veto a whole budget because of it.

Glad you folks can recognize that.

A pox on both their houses. The President is petty and trying to drop the Repugs into a trap, and is willing to harm the nation to do it.
The Repugs are feeding to a base of nattering nabobs, and is willing to harm the nation to do it. until they pass a budget everyone in Washington should have their paychecks frozen. The period of time those paychekcs are frozen that money should go to paying down the debt, no retroactive repays.

I agree, including the representatives, the president and the military. When the public starts hearing about serving troops not getting paid, black eyes will be dealt. Rightfully so.

Won't happen. The congress critters always cover down on that. Some DoD civilians will get furloughed but the troops won't have to worry about getting paid.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
So if funding Planned Parenthood is such a minor issue, POTUS would indeed be petty to veto a whole budget because of it.

Glad you folks can recognize that.

A pox on both their houses. The President is petty and trying to drop the Repugs into a trap, and is willing to harm the nation to do it.
The Repugs are feeding to a base of nattering nabobs, and is willing to harm the nation to do it. until they pass a budget everyone in Washington should have their paychecks frozen. The period of time those paychekcs are frozen that money should go to paying down the debt, no retroactive repays.

I agree, including the representatives, the president and the military. When the public starts hearing about serving troops not getting paid, black eyes will be dealt. Rightfully so.

Everyone who gets a paycheck from the government. Welfare, employees, contractors, everyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
So if funding Planned Parenthood is such a minor issue, POTUS would indeed be petty to veto a whole budget because of it.

Glad you folks can recognize that.

A pox on both their houses. The President is petty and trying to drop the Repugs into a trap, and is willing to harm the nation to do it.
The Repugs are feeding to a base of nattering nabobs, and is willing to harm the nation to do it. until they pass a budget everyone in Washington should have their paychecks frozen. The period of time those paychekcs are frozen that money should go to paying down the debt, no retroactive repays.

I agree, including the representatives, the president and the military. When the public starts hearing about serving troops not getting paid, black eyes will be dealt. Rightfully so.

Won't happen. The congress critters always cover down on that. Some DoD civilians will get furloughed but the troops won't have to worry about getting paid.

And thats the problem. They've covered it off (yet STILL look stupid).
Have these jokers even passed a budget this decade?

Sorry, but I can't agree wth taking food from people because the Republicans want to throw a temper tantrum again.

Edit:

According to this I'm a hardcore Bernie Sanders supporter, followed by Rand Paul. interesting....
http://www.isidewith.com/

That's my point. If you are going to be willing to shut it down. SHUT. IT. DOWN. No CIA, no FBI, no computer use of govt. employees on govt. servers, no federal dams in operation, no federal roads, no Nasa contact or support with people on the space station, no anything. When that happens, maybe the American people will get the picture. Of 1). Your tax dollars pay for lots of gak you like (and need) 2) don't play politics with taxpayers money. People in Washington will grow up pretty quickly, I would guess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:
Sorry, but I can't agree wth taking food from people because the Republicans want to throw a temper tantrum again.

Let them throw the tantrum, or whoever you want to place the blame on, within two hours you will have a bill that the pres will sign. The next time-there won't be a next time.

Right now, Cruz and his ilk have no repercussions. If that were to actually happen, no more Ted Cruzes.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
That's my point. If you are going to be willing to shut it down. SHUT. IT. DOWN. No CIA, no FBI, no computer use of govt. employees on govt. servers, no federal dams in operation, no federal roads, no Nasa contact or support with people on the space station, no anything. When that happens, maybe the American people will get the picture. Of 1). Your tax dollars pay for lots of gak you like (and need) 2) don't play politics with taxpayers money. People in Washington will grow up pretty quickly, I would guess.

And that has been my point before. Shut downs will NEVER be as scary/evil as the fear mongers make out. Let 'em shut it down the way they do. Let the tax payers realize that when the 'not critical' folks take an extra week or two off, no-one really suffers, the nation's business still continues. The Fed Gov't shuts down every weekend and from roughly Thanksgiving through New Years every damned year, and the world continues. It is only when you get a really petty person like Obama who actually increases personnel in some areas in order to 'visibly shut down' tourist attractions like parks and monuments that some people realize there is a shut down, and that is done just to be a gak bag.

Frankly it is a sign of how bloated and out of control it is.

 Frazzled wrote:
Edit:

According to this I'm a hardcore Bernie Sanders supporter, followed by Rand Paul. interesting....
http://www.isidewith.com/

According to that test... I'm hardcore Rubio, followed by Rand.

o.O

 CptJake wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
That's my point. If you are going to be willing to shut it down. SHUT. IT. DOWN. No CIA, no FBI, no computer use of govt. employees on govt. servers, no federal dams in operation, no federal roads, no Nasa contact or support with people on the space station, no anything. When that happens, maybe the American people will get the picture. Of 1). Your tax dollars pay for lots of gak you like (and need) 2) don't play politics with taxpayers money. People in Washington will grow up pretty quickly, I would guess.

And that has been my point before. Shut downs will NEVER be as scary/evil as the fear mongers make out. Let 'em shut it down the way they do. Let the tax payers realize that when the 'not critical' folks take an extra week or two off, no-one really suffers, the nation's business still continues. The Fed Gov't shuts down every weekend and from roughly Thanksgiving through New Years every damned year, and the world continues. It is only when you get a really petty person like Obama who actually increases personnel in some areas in order to 'visibly shut down' tourist attractions like parks and monuments that some people realize there is a shut down, and that is done just to be a gak bag.

Frankly it is a sign of how bloated and out of control it is.

See, I take away a whole different lesson--just how important the government actually is. We don't really shut down the govt. on weekends and holidays. We couldn't. The lawmakers leave town. Do you think they aren't working? Do you think troops really care if it's a Saturday or Sunday on duty? It's just another workday. Dams still work, the interstate is still open. Your logic befuddles me.

And that takes into no account the non govt. workers who rely on govt. workers to get a paycheck. The entire town of Keystone, SD gets its lifeblood from Mt. Rushmore tourist traffic. The residents are mostly migratory, moving to the south in the winter, moving back during the tourist season to open shop. No tourists, no paycheck, no town. And here I thought the GOP was the champion of the small business.