• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama Administration Steals $3 Billion From The Treasury To Fund Obamacare Kickbacks

Patranus

Patranus

Diamond Member
Last edited by a moderator:
It might never have to be "annually appropriated". If the program was set up by eligibility (eg: meet this criteria, then the treasury will cut a check), then its effectively a mandatory spending program, ala Social Security and Medicare.
 
Allegations or not (I haven't seen any allegations so don't know where that remark comes from), I think the Treas should explain where our money goes and why. I find the level of insubordination (and law breaking) shocking. Congress controls the purse; it's the boss. If Congress asks why you cut a check you need to f'ing explain it.

Fern
 
Fern said:
Allegations or not (I haven't seen any allegations so don't know where that remark comes from), I think the Treas should explain where our money goes and why. I find the level of insubordination (and law breaking) shocking. Congress controls the purse; it's the boss. If Congress asks why you cut a check you need to f'ing explain it.

Fern
Click to expand...

Read the thread title.

It's not Congress' job to micromanage the executive branch, either, particularly not in this grandstanding fashion.

Citing a mistaken request for funding by the executive as proof of Congressional intent is a little thin, don't you think?

What's really going on here is Repubs' continuously coming back to wage a battle they already lost, throwing red meat to their Obama hatin' base at the same time.

They took it to the SCOTUS & lost. I seriously doubt that the SCOTUS would gut the ACA so soon after ruling in its favor, despite the dancing on the head of a legal pin by Repub lawyers. As the article points out, it's already in litigation via the Boehner suit so further demands are just.... Grandstanding.

Insubordination? Lawbreaking? The Treasury dept answers to the President & none other. They follow orders. If Congress is sufficiently displeased with the President, they have Constitutional options.
 
I thought Dubya kinda set the bar for shit with Trillions of dollars wherever the fuck he wanted long ago.

I guess the days of comptrollers went out the window long ago anyways, they used to be taken seriously once upon a time and where there for various reasons.

I think I'm sane, I'm not looking at any rate.

I'd like to try to stay that way.
 
Jhhnn said:
Puh-leeze. It's inherent in the whole idea of separation of powers. Treasury can't serve two masters.
Click to expand...

So what is the role of congress if it is not to authorize spending?

If not, what sections of the Constitution authorizes the executive branch to tax and then allocate spending to executive orders?

Or you know, you are full of shit.
 
Patranus said:
Thats not how this works. Thats not how any of this works. (read the Constitution)
Click to expand...

Boy you are on a roll tonight!

The Department of the Treasury (DoT) is an executive department and the treasury of the United States federal government. It was established by an Act of Congress in 1789 to manage government revenue.[1] The Department is administered by the Secretary of the Treasury, who is a member of the Cabinet. Jacob J. Lew is the current Secretary of the Treasury; he was sworn in on February 28, 2013.
Click to expand...

Anything else you'd like us to explain to you regarding how our government works?
 
Patranus said:
So what is the role of congress if it is not to authorize spending?

If not, what sections of the Constitution authorizes the executive branch to tax and then allocate spending to executive orders?

Or you know, you are full of shit.
Click to expand...

Congress does authorize spending, by passing laws that require it. For example, the ACA. Congress does NOT allocate funds, which is the Treasury's job. If Congress doesn't pass laws to raise enough money to pay for all the stuff it passed laws requiring, that just means there's a deficit. If Congress doesn't want money allocated to enact a law, then it simply repeals the law. It doesn't get to whine that the Treasury is following the law by allocating funds that were approved, but that the current Congress can't actually repeal.
 
berzerker60 said:
Congress does authorize spending, by passing laws that require it. For example, the ACA. Congress does NOT allocate funds, which is the Treasury's job. If Congress doesn't pass laws to raise enough money to pay for all the stuff it passed laws requiring, that just means there's a deficit. If Congress doesn't want money allocated to enact a law, then it simply repeals the law. It doesn't get to whine that the Treasury is following the law by allocating funds that were approved, but that the current Congress can't actually repeal.
Click to expand...

But congress never enacted such funding.

If Obama doesn't like the immigration laws does that mean he gets to change them or does that mean congress has to offer a legislative solution????

Separation of powers 😉
 
Patranus said:
But congress never enacted such funding.

If Obama doesn't like the immigration laws does that mean he gets to change them or does that mean congress has to offer a legislative solution????

Separation of powers 😉
Click to expand...

Obama, as the Executive, can choose how to enforce certain laws. Just as any executive can do.

Does every police officer have to give you a traffic ticket for speeding, or can they let you off with a warning, depending on the circumstances?

Obama decided that he doesn't want to go and round up millions of kids who were brought here and raised here, with no legal cognizance of their own about breaking any particular law. Hence, letting them off with a warning.

If you want to talk about Amnesty, go review St. Ronald of Reagan's executive order. Or Bush I.
 
Patranus said:
But congress never enacted such funding.

If Obama doesn't like the immigration laws does that mean he gets to change them or does that mean congress has to offer a legislative solution????

Separation of powers 😉
Click to expand...

Obama doesn't get to change laws, no, and he hasn't tried.

Where there is no law one way or another, especially as it relates to the details and minutiae of HOW to enact a law that's been passed, the executive branch is free to interpret things how it wants. That's what Obama did on immigration. The law said the executive was tasked with enforcing immigration law, but without enough resources to do everything (it never could possibly do everything, unless it hired an infinite army of agents to check every person in America constantly or something). Obama just set the priorities for enforcement.

Congress can absolutely pass a law specifying that the executive branch has to deport all non-violent criminal immigrants before it spends time on violent criminal immigrants, I guess, and reverse Obama's executive order that way. It would never pass.

Congress could also pass an entire immigration reform package. That also won't ever happen, because Republicans don't have a plan, they have whining about how everything about immigration is unfair and they just want everything magicked to be perfect and they want it NOW.

If Obama were actually violating the law, Congress could ALSO impeach him. That will also never happen, because he hasn't actually broken any laws, and they don't have the support.
 
Patranus said:
So what is the role of congress if it is not to authorize spending?

If not, what sections of the Constitution authorizes the executive branch to tax and then allocate spending to executive orders?

Or you know, you are full of shit.
Click to expand...

You duh-vert entirely. As I offered, Congress has Constitutional options. They're free to impeach Obama for what he tells executive branch departments to do.

It's just that simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top