And how would you confirm the token was not bartered, gifted, or involuntarily taken from the voter? We're looking at the toolbox of the corrupt political machines of yesteryear, just with higher tech.
What you say is false, despite the kernel of truth upon which you have created your falsehood. The president submits a budget request, that's true. Congress is under no obligation to approve what the president wrote. If that were the case, there would be no reason to involve congress at all. The end result must still, constitutionally, be an appropriations bill (or series thereof) originating in the House.
You have a very naive view of what actually happens in that situation. Bills get paid, we simply are forced to stop incurring new ones and to cancel what would have become some other bills.
I'm not sure what people think legislators do if not create, repeal, and change law. I keep hearing the "law of the land" argument despite Congress having the authority to change that (within the restrictions placed by the Constitution upon such changes and laws). If our countrymen do not understand what a legislator (or executive, for that matter) does, they are the reason our country is so screwed.
Personally, I prefer the term "non-urgent". It needs to be done at some point by someone, but whether it gets done this week or six weeks from now is probably arbitrary.
I appreciate your compliment, but you really need to come to terms with the fact that when it comes down to what is and is not appropriate for Congress and the Chief Executive to do, the Constitution is pretty much all that matters.
First, default isn't even on the table. No matter how much some politicians may claim it is. There are laws pertaining to the prioritization. Debts are given the highest priority for payment, in both regular interest and principal payments. Bonds are likewise given top priority, as they are part of the debt. Social Security actually holds many IOU-style instruments that work (for all intents and purposes) like bonds and the treasury must give them priority like any other debt. The list goes on, and I don't know the details beyond that. Nor does any one person, really. Suffice to say the first things to go will not be "paying our bills" or essential services like Air Traffic Control. It would be a highly political process, but it certainly won't be the disaster politicians want you to believe. All it would do is force us to stop overspending and to make some very painful (to some) cuts. I'm sure you, like just about everybody, has their short-list of things that should have been gone years ago. And I'm sure just about every one steps on somebody's toes regarding their "high priority" list.
Come off anon, and I'll think about looking for one, but it hardly seems necessary to worry about this particular set of furloughs for now. Mine was a comment on the way the House has responded to particularly important programmes during this shutdown so far, not a comment of specific fact regarding the NRC.
From TFA, though, I would be shocked if it were necessary. The functions being shut down are both routine and bureaucratic. I somehow doubt all Hell will break loose if a few routine inspections get pushed back a few weeks.
Beginning on Thursday, we will not conduct non-emergency reactor licensing, reactor license renewal amendments, emergency preparedness exercises, reviews of design certifications or rulemaking and regulatory guidance.
Also suspended for now will be routine licensing and inspection of nuclear materials and waste licensees, Agreement State support and rulemakings, including Waste Confidence. This is just a short list of the actions we are prohibited from performing under Anti-deficiency Act restrictions.
Let me stress, however, that all of our resident inspectors will remain on the job and any immediate safety or security matters will be handled with dispatch. We can â" and will without hesitation â" bring employees out of furlough to respond to an emergency. We must, in this regard, err on the side of safety and security.
All in all, what I'm getting from this is a "This is important in the long run but the particularly important jobs are being done. The rest are less time-sensitive and will just have to wait."
So in that light, given the way the House has operated so far, given the routine and bureaucratic nature of the furloughs, I don't expect to see this as a priority item unless this shutdown drags out far longer than I expect it to. And if it becomes necessary to do a round of inspections, I would be surprised if the House did not propose a piecemeal appropriations bill for the NRC on at least a temporary basis.
The fact that you think the Feds operate under such a similar system to we the people tells me you don't follow politics as closely as you seem to think you do. By the logic you are using, we'd have to send the entire government to prison on charges running our full range of felonies. Racketeering, Ponzi schemes, war crimes... the list is far too extensive to cover here.
The answer to your rhetorical question of "why must the world be so cruel" is that our nation elected 536 preschoolers with suits and grey hair, expecting them to act like adults.
Technically, the Federal Government takes in more than enough to pay the interest and principal payments on the debt every month. I love how everyone pretends that's the first thing to get screwed, when the reality is that there are a lot of other agencies, programmes, and other entities and expenditures that disappear before we "default". All this talk about "default" and "full faith and credit" has been nothing but dishonest propaganda.
I would tend to agree with your statements here. Glad to find something we can agree on every once in a while! I have no desire to give people the opportunity to attempt to persuade me to part with my money. I'll part with my money when I want to part with my money, for what I actually want to spend it on, thanks.
It takes two to tango. Both the congress and president are to blame. Appropriations may originate in the House, but they also have to pass the Senate and either get signed by the President or overriden after a veto by a highly unified body of legislators over at the Capitol.
If the House is holding true to their strategy as used so far this round, they've probably approved this expenditure piecemal and been rejected or not taken up by the Senate. Call it political if you like, but any politician that refuses to do so deserves to to be run out of Washington on a rail.
I block ads for basically every reason listed in the article, including the so-called positives. I not only don't want to be tracked, but I also don't want to be marketed to. Period. If you cold-call me, you have a 100% chance of not selling to me. If you use banner ads, you have about a 99% chance of being blocked, and a 1% chance of me not wishing to buy your product specifically because you are part of the advertising system I hate (and because you're wasting my bandwidth). If you show up at my office unbidden, I will not buy your product unless ordered to by my boss.
That leaves television, and I watch very little that has actual commercial breaks. I pay Netflix $8 a month for that privilege. When I do take the time to watch something on normal television, I DVR it and skip the ads. Hell, I refuse to use Spotify because blocking the ads makes the site unusable.
Perhaps this is the backlash Mr. Marti noted. I've been blocking ads since my dialup days, and I simply don't see why anyone else would trust them either.
I think not documenting it is the point of the entire operation. I'm not saying it's likely in this case (the rag is more likely to be a fraud, or possibly the "Louis" they beheaded being a look-alike). I'm just pointing out a possibility.
But it is the first time a shutdown has resulted in a president vastly abusing his power to intentionally create misery where it was completely unnecessary. I bet that will get its own paragraph in the history books.
I'm not sure you understand the term "democracy". The Republicans in the House were elected just as democratically as the Democrats in the Senate and the White House. They are completely within their authority to democratically deny the Democrats a spending bill that includes Obamacare. The constitution allows the legislative to override the executive, but not the executive to force Congress to pass anything. It also does not allow either house to force the other to do anything at all.
BTW, next time you want to talk about democracy, please remember that the framers of the Constitution were careful not to give us a Democracy, but a Republic. To protect the people from exactly what we've seen since the 17th amendment. We need to repeal that amendment if we ever want to end deep deficit spending in the long-term. Directly-elected senators have proven a disaster in that regard.
Slashdot Mirror
It absolutely writes it. Are you sure you know what a budget is? A request is not a budget.
And how would you confirm the token was not bartered, gifted, or involuntarily taken from the voter? We're looking at the toolbox of the corrupt political machines of yesteryear, just with higher tech.
What you say is false, despite the kernel of truth upon which you have created your falsehood. The president submits a budget request, that's true. Congress is under no obligation to approve what the president wrote. If that were the case, there would be no reason to involve congress at all. The end result must still, constitutionally, be an appropriations bill (or series thereof) originating in the House.
You have a very naive view of what actually happens in that situation. Bills get paid, we simply are forced to stop incurring new ones and to cancel what would have become some other bills.
On average, you're actually correct.
I'm not sure what people think legislators do if not create, repeal, and change law. I keep hearing the "law of the land" argument despite Congress having the authority to change that (within the restrictions placed by the Constitution upon such changes and laws). If our countrymen do not understand what a legislator (or executive, for that matter) does, they are the reason our country is so screwed.
That's because we are unreliable. It has nothing to do with a debt ceiling and everything to do with reckless fiscal policy in general.
You can pretty much bet this process is handled digitally at this point. And probably badly.
Personally, I prefer the term "non-urgent". It needs to be done at some point by someone, but whether it gets done this week or six weeks from now is probably arbitrary.
I appreciate your compliment, but you really need to come to terms with the fact that when it comes down to what is and is not appropriate for Congress and the Chief Executive to do, the Constitution is pretty much all that matters.
First, default isn't even on the table. No matter how much some politicians may claim it is. There are laws pertaining to the prioritization. Debts are given the highest priority for payment, in both regular interest and principal payments. Bonds are likewise given top priority, as they are part of the debt. Social Security actually holds many IOU-style instruments that work (for all intents and purposes) like bonds and the treasury must give them priority like any other debt. The list goes on, and I don't know the details beyond that. Nor does any one person, really. Suffice to say the first things to go will not be "paying our bills" or essential services like Air Traffic Control. It would be a highly political process, but it certainly won't be the disaster politicians want you to believe. All it would do is force us to stop overspending and to make some very painful (to some) cuts. I'm sure you, like just about everybody, has their short-list of things that should have been gone years ago. And I'm sure just about every one steps on somebody's toes regarding their "high priority" list.
Nice try though.
Come off anon, and I'll think about looking for one, but it hardly seems necessary to worry about this particular set of furloughs for now. Mine was a comment on the way the House has responded to particularly important programmes during this shutdown so far, not a comment of specific fact regarding the NRC.
From TFA, though, I would be shocked if it were necessary. The functions being shut down are both routine and bureaucratic. I somehow doubt all Hell will break loose if a few routine inspections get pushed back a few weeks.
All in all, what I'm getting from this is a "This is important in the long run but the particularly important jobs are being done. The rest are less time-sensitive and will just have to wait."
So in that light, given the way the House has operated so far, given the routine and bureaucratic nature of the furloughs, I don't expect to see this as a priority item unless this shutdown drags out far longer than I expect it to. And if it becomes necessary to do a round of inspections, I would be surprised if the House did not propose a piecemeal appropriations bill for the NRC on at least a temporary basis.
I can live with that.
Actually, it's both Latin and much older than you think.
The fact that you think the Feds operate under such a similar system to we the people tells me you don't follow politics as closely as you seem to think you do. By the logic you are using, we'd have to send the entire government to prison on charges running our full range of felonies. Racketeering, Ponzi schemes, war crimes... the list is far too extensive to cover here.
I'm not sure you understand the constitution if you don't understand how passing a non-omnibus appropriations bill works.
The answer to your rhetorical question of "why must the world be so cruel" is that our nation elected 536 preschoolers with suits and grey hair, expecting them to act like adults.
Technically, the Federal Government takes in more than enough to pay the interest and principal payments on the debt every month. I love how everyone pretends that's the first thing to get screwed, when the reality is that there are a lot of other agencies, programmes, and other entities and expenditures that disappear before we "default". All this talk about "default" and "full faith and credit" has been nothing but dishonest propaganda.
I would tend to agree with your statements here. Glad to find something we can agree on every once in a while! I have no desire to give people the opportunity to attempt to persuade me to part with my money. I'll part with my money when I want to part with my money, for what I actually want to spend it on, thanks.
It takes two to tango. Both the congress and president are to blame. Appropriations may originate in the House, but they also have to pass the Senate and either get signed by the President or overriden after a veto by a highly unified body of legislators over at the Capitol.
If the House is holding true to their strategy as used so far this round, they've probably approved this expenditure piecemal and been rejected or not taken up by the Senate. Call it political if you like, but any politician that refuses to do so deserves to to be run out of Washington on a rail.
I see what you did there.
I block ads for basically every reason listed in the article, including the so-called positives. I not only don't want to be tracked, but I also don't want to be marketed to. Period. If you cold-call me, you have a 100% chance of not selling to me. If you use banner ads, you have about a 99% chance of being blocked, and a 1% chance of me not wishing to buy your product specifically because you are part of the advertising system I hate (and because you're wasting my bandwidth). If you show up at my office unbidden, I will not buy your product unless ordered to by my boss.
That leaves television, and I watch very little that has actual commercial breaks. I pay Netflix $8 a month for that privilege. When I do take the time to watch something on normal television, I DVR it and skip the ads. Hell, I refuse to use Spotify because blocking the ads makes the site unusable.
Perhaps this is the backlash Mr. Marti noted. I've been blocking ads since my dialup days, and I simply don't see why anyone else would trust them either.
I think not documenting it is the point of the entire operation. I'm not saying it's likely in this case (the rag is more likely to be a fraud, or possibly the "Louis" they beheaded being a look-alike). I'm just pointing out a possibility.
But it is the first time a shutdown has resulted in a president vastly abusing his power to intentionally create misery where it was completely unnecessary. I bet that will get its own paragraph in the history books.
I'm not sure you understand the term "democracy". The Republicans in the House were elected just as democratically as the Democrats in the Senate and the White House. They are completely within their authority to democratically deny the Democrats a spending bill that includes Obamacare. The constitution allows the legislative to override the executive, but not the executive to force Congress to pass anything. It also does not allow either house to force the other to do anything at all.
BTW, next time you want to talk about democracy, please remember that the framers of the Constitution were careful not to give us a Democracy, but a Republic. To protect the people from exactly what we've seen since the 17th amendment. We need to repeal that amendment if we ever want to end deep deficit spending in the long-term. Directly-elected senators have proven a disaster in that regard.