Pay for Me but not for Thee

[Puffnstuff]

Looks like they kicked it down the road again for 45 days.

 

[Ajay]

Looks like they kicked it down the road again for 45 days.

Yep, kicked the can again. I thought that was just a kids game.

is the senate able to add the aide to the Ukraine back in? Don’t know if is some rule that gets around the normal system.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Yep, kicked the can again. I thought that was just a kids game.

is the senate able to add the aide to the Ukraine back in? Don’t know if is some rule that gets around the normal system.

Mitch & Kevin McCuck each stated support for Ukraine. I suspect there is wiggle room regarding funding it’s also worded as no additional funding or something similar. Plainly it’s to appease MAGA Shitheads.

 

[Ajay]

Republicans may not be responsible for all shutdowns but they are definitely responsible for this one. The senate CR would easily pass the house but Republicans refuse to bring it up for a vote.

And that’s the key point. The house (on the republican side), is almost completely dysfunctional. When you have someone like McCarthy saying he’s the only adult in the room - well, that’s a pretty scary situation.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Yep, kicked the can again. I thought that was just a kids game.

is the senate able to add the aide to the Ukraine back in? Don’t know if is some rule that gets around the normal system.

As far as I know, so far ... McCarthy has said nothing publicly about bringing a Ukraine supplemental to the House floor. Democrats have said it’s their “expectation” that he will do so, but that doesn’t really mean much. It’s very likely that there is enough support in the House to pass such a bill, but the majority of the House Republican Caucus voted against a Ukraine assistance bill earlier in the week. So, McCarthy would be bringing the bill to the floor when the majority of his caucus is opposed – a violation of the so-called “Hastert Rule.” There are almost certainly the votes to pass it in the Senate as well (it would need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster).

 

[pcgeek11]

ROFL yeah it was the Democrats' fault Trump shut the government down as soon as his Republican House left for Christmas and the newly elected Democrat House wouldn't give him the border wall he never pressured his Republican House to deliver.

ROFL both sidesing this when it's your party that keeps shutting the government down

So are you attempting to indicate that the Democrats have never caused a shutdown?

 

[SteveGrabowski]

So are you attempting to indicate that the Democrats have never caused a shutdown?

ROFL bothsidesing it when you're having to dig back 25-30 years to blame Democrats for a shutdown.

 

[pcgeek11]

ROFL bothsidesing it when you're having to dig back 25-30 years to blame Democrats for a shutdown.

Regardless of the time periods, the point was both parties cause these gaps...

With that out of the way, I think that these assholes Gaetz, MTG and Chip Roy ... are shitheads that are just doing shithead things...

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Regardless of the time periods, the point was both parties cause these gaps...

With that out of the way, I think that these assholes Gaetz, MTG and Chip Roy ... are shitheads that are just doing shithead things...

Not in the last 25 years. It has been a GOP solo act shutting the government down.

 

[pcgeek11]

Not in the last 25 years. It has been a GOP solo act shutting the government down.

Whatever you want to believe.

 

[akugami]

And that’s the key point. The house (on the republican side), is almost completely dysfunctional. When you have someone like McCarthy saying he’s the only adult in the room - well, that’s a pretty scary situation.

McCarthy absolutely is the only adult in the room, for the GOP side.

He's the substitute teacher for a high school senior class, after final exams are already in. And Gaetz, Boebert, and Greene are shooting spit balls in his face.

 

[MrSquished]

Not all shutdowns are due to Republicans.

List of United States federal funding gaps - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Every shutdown has been caused by the Republican Congress. The Democrats threatened to do it in the '80s when Reagan was president but they realized it was a terrible bluff and would be even more terrible if they followed through so they didn't follow through. In other words they didn't shut down the government. Only the GQP.

You can never take ownership for what your party does. And you rarely tell the truth.

I could post the articles about it but you will just deny reality. So why don't you Google who's been responsible for all the government shutdowns and ignore the truth on your own time.

 

[pmv]

Is this a necro? I thought you were all arguing about a shutdown back at the start of the year?

Why are you all debating this again? Is it Groundhog day (again)? I don't remember waking up to "I got you babe".

Is this the same issue as this thread?

Debt Limitapalooza 2023!

The debt limit will be reached on the 19th necessitating “extraordinary means”. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/01/13/us-will-hit-its-debt-limit-thursday-start-taking-steps-to-avoid-default-yellen-warns-congress.html What’s your default position on what’s going to happen?

forums.anandtech.com

 

[Ken g6]

Is this a necro? I thought you were all arguing about a shutdown back at the start of the year?

Why are you all debating this again? Is it Groundhog day (again)? I don't remember waking up to "I got you babe".

Is this the same issue as this thread?

Debt Limitapalooza 2023!

The debt limit will be reached on the 19th necessitating “extraordinary means”. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/01/13/us-will-hit-its-debt-limit-thursday-start-taking-steps-to-avoid-default-yellen-warns-congress.html What’s your default position on what’s going to happen?

forums.anandtech.com

No, it's not (quite) the same issue.

Every year or so the government sets a budget with spending commitments. If they don't the government "shuts down", going into minimal spending mode, until they do. This is bad, as some people like government employees and welfare recipients won't get paid, but not a disaster. It's happened several times, and it will probably happen again. But not for at least 40-some days! This "continuing resolution" is an agreement (resolution) to keep (continue) spending like the last budget, for 45 days.

The government gets money to spend by taxes, by issuing bonds (which are loans taken out from bond buyers), and by printing money. The previous issue was that, for some reason, the government set a "debt limit" beyond which it will stop issuing bonds and printing money. The problem is, if the government doesn't borrow money, it will have to stop paying everything, including its "mortgage" of bonds. It's a politically manufactured time-bomb. Aside from nobody getting paid, defaulting on its loans would make it harder to get future loans. Printing money is also an option, e.g. the trillion-dollar coin, but it tends to cause more inflation in the medium-to-long term.

 

[pmv]

No, it's not (quite) the same issue.

Every year or so the government sets a budget with spending commitments. If they don't the government "shuts down", going into minimal spending mode, until they do. This is bad, as some people like government employees and welfare recipients won't get paid, but not a disaster. It's happened several times, and it will probably happen again. But not for at least 40-some days! This "continuing resolution" is an agreement (resolution) to keep (continue) spending like the last budget, for 45 days.

The government gets money to spend by taxes, by issuing bonds (which are loans taken out from bond buyers), and by printing money. The previous issue was that, for some reason, the government set a "debt limit" beyond which it will stop issuing bonds and printing money. The problem is, if the government doesn't borrow money, it will have to stop paying everything, including its "mortgage" of bonds. It's a politically manufactured time-bomb. Aside from nobody getting paid, defaulting on its loans would make it harder to get future loans. Printing money is also an option, e.g. the trillion-dollar coin, but it tends to cause more inflation in the medium-to-long term.

So this time it's that the government forgot to present a budget - that thing when the Chancellor of the Exchequer stands up in parliament and announces he's adding two pence to the price of a pint of beer, and so on, or whatever the equivalent is in the US system - in this case they just didn't get round to doing that? Overslept, maybe? Left the famous red briefcase on the kitchen table? And because of that everything grinds to a halt?

What a weird ramshackle system.

The US system has _issues_. And it's not as if it has the excuse of being a thousand years old and based on watery bints distributing swords or something, and thus can't help being weird.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Whatever you want to believe.

You mean facts? LOL you blaming the scary negro president because the House GOP shut the government down for him implementing the fucking healthcare law he got passed. LOL you blaming the Democrats for Trump shutting the government down when they didn't give him the border wall he never asked his own party to pass when it was in power because it was just a campaign slogan he never actually gave a shit about.

 

[Ken g6]

So this time it's that the government forgot to present a budget - that thing when the Chancellor of the Exchequer stands up in parliament and announces he's adding two pence to the price of a pint of beer, and so on, or whatever the equivalent is in the US system - in this case they just didn't get round to doing that? Overslept, maybe? Left the famous red briefcase on the kitchen table? And because of that everything grinds to a halt?

What a weird ramshackle system.

The US system has _issues_. And it's not as if it has the excuse of being a thousand years old and based on watery bints distributing swords or something, and thus can't help being weird.

What?

The US creates bills setting out everything they're going to spend and everything they're going to tax, ideally every year. (They often do continuing resolutions without this much fireworks.) While some things, such as Social Security, have been voted in effectively forever, they won't get money until the budget is passed. It's possible for Congress to agree to do something, then allocate $0 to it, so it doesn't get done. It's also possible for Congress to require the President (or a subsidiary part of the executive branch such as NASA) to spend money he doesn't want to spend. This is called "the power of the purse".

There's also a set of made-up rules for what can go in a budget bill requiring only 51/100 senators, instead of 60/100, to agree to it. Whether each provision of a budget adheres to or violates these rules is announced by the Senate Parliamentarian. Maybe that's like your Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Maybe not. It looks like the British system doesn't carefully separate legislators from the executive branch (the President and most government agencies). The Senate Parliamentarian just judges rules the Senate has made up for itself. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seems more like the treasury secretary, which in our system is part of the executive branch. But they have no real power; spending control, "the power of the purse", is reserved to Congress.

 

[pmv]

What?

The US creates bills setting out everything they're going to spend and everything they're going to tax, ideally every year. (They often do continuing resolutions without this much fireworks.) While some things, such as Social Security, have been voted in effectively forever, they won't get money until the budget is passed. It's possible for Congress to agree to do something, then allocate $0 to it, so it doesn't get done. It's also possible for Congress to require the President (or a subsidiary part of the executive branch such as NASA) to spend money he doesn't want to spend. This is called "the power of the purse".

There's also a set of made-up rules for what can go in a budget bill requiring only 51/100 senators, instead of 60/100, to agree to it. Whether each provision of a budget adheres to or violates these rules is announced by the Senate Parliamentarian. Maybe that's like your Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Maybe not. It looks like the British system doesn't carefully separate legislators from the executive branch (the President and most government agencies). The Senate Parliamentarian just judges rules the Senate has made up for itself. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seems more like the treasury secretary, which in our system is part of the executive branch. But they have no real power; spending control, "the power of the purse", is reserved to Congress.

I'm not an expert on it, but my understanding is in a parliamentary system the Chancellor presents the budget, and parliament votes on it. Parliament almost always passes it because to be Chancellor you have to be part of the government that already has the backing of a majority of the MPs. (I guess that's the point about executive and legislature being conflated - the PM is not elected separately from the MPs and the head of state isn't elected at all - a whole other type of crazyness).

If it fails that's pretty much the end of that government and the monarch asks someone else (the leader of the opposition, whoever can get a majority of MPs to support them and get a budget through) to form a new one.

But I don't think it means all government spending grinds to a halt, it just means the changes that the budget was going to bring in don't happen. That's the bit I find odd, that a failure to get a budget through leads to such an unnecessary crisis. Why don't things just carry on as before?

I mean, as a failed budget vote tends to be the end the government, it _is_ often a _political_ crisis, which can have economic effects (the 'markets' don't like such things) but there doesn't seem to be this business of government workers not getting paid, etc. The previous budget just continues in effect till a new government can pass a new one. And coming after the similar drama of less than a year ago, it really looks quite chaotic (if not as bad as our system of giving every Tory MP - no matter how useless or mad - a turn at being Prime Minister for five minutes).

 

[IronWing]

Our constitution has a clause: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law". Congress can make multi-year appropriation laws or even open-ended appropriation laws but they almost never do. A few laws, like the Social Security Act, contain provisions to keep spending until Congress changes the law. The only hard limit in the Constitution is a two year limit for spending on military expenses other than the navy. The founders didn't want the President to be able to field a standing army without Congress having a chokehold on it (it didn't work ). The navy got a pass because it took so long to build ships back then. When it comes to spending bills, Congress rarely attempts to tie the hands of future Congresses by passing perpetual spending bills.

It makes large, long term projects very difficult to implement because it takes annual votes in Congress to keep them funded. So the really big stuff that only the feds can do are also the most vulnerable to getting killed before completion.

 

[pmv]

This article seems to answer my question. Interesting/darkly-funny that Northern Ireland - and only Northern Ireland - did seem to come close to the same problem as the US. I suppose that's a reflection on how polarised the US is now.

Seems that every political system has its own unique forms of farce.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/01/22/why-other-countries-dont-have-government-shutdowns-2/

 

[fskimospy]

This article seems to answer my question. Interesting/darkly-funny that Northern Ireland - and only Northern Ireland - did seem to come close to the same problem as the US. I suppose that's a reflection on how polarised the US is now.

Seems that every political system has its own unique forms of farce.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/01/22/why-other-countries-dont-have-government-shutdowns-2/

To me government shutdowns aren't really a problem. They're deeply stupid but if Congress doesn't want to spend money on X then that's their business. The debt ceiling is the real monster that needs to be abolished.

 

[hal2kilo]

Is this a necro? I thought you were all arguing about a shutdown back at the start of the year?

Why are you all debating this again? Is it Groundhog day (again)? I don't remember waking up to "I got you babe".

Is this the same issue as this thread?

Debt Limitapalooza 2023!

The debt limit will be reached on the 19th necessitating “extraordinary means”. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/01/13/us-will-hit-its-debt-limit-thursday-start-taking-steps-to-avoid-default-yellen-warns-congress.html What’s your default position on what’s going to happen?

forums.anandtech.com

Due to groundhog actually posting.

 

[Ajay]

To me government shutdowns aren't really a problem. They're deeply stupid but if Congress doesn't want to spend money on X then that's their business. The debt ceiling is the real monster that needs to be abolished.

I think it only the US and the Netherlands that have a debt ceiling, and the Dutch are smart enough to put the limit so high that they won't ever reach it.

 

[Pohemi]

Due to groundhog actually posting.

'Don't post angry!'