What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

bronconick said:
As far as I can tell, the few remaining sane conservatives are groveling for Ryan to "save" them
Click to expand...

Oddly enough he's probably the only guy who could get them out of this immediate crisis but then the problem remains. If he cuts deals with the WH he's a sell out. If not he blows up the country's budget and credit.

Best thing these @ ss clowns could do is put off any changes until after budget and debt limit hike agreed upon. That way John Boner can make a deal with the Dems, get all of this stuff off their plate, and then the House can go back to being useless for all of 2016 until the elections.
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Rover said:
Oddly enough he's probably the only guy who could get them out of this immediate crisis but then the problem remains. If he cuts deals with the WH he's a sell out. If not he blows up the country's budget and credit.

Best thing these @ ss clowns could do is put off any changes until after budget and debt limit hike agreed upon. That way John Boner can make a deal with the Dems, get all of this stuff off their plate, and then the House can go back to being useless for all of 2016 until the elections.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. Any debt limit increase shows fiscal irresponsibility. The Taxed Enough Already party "mandate", which I think we can agree exists because that's the movement that brought the GOP back into power in Congress, is one of being fiscally conservative and making do with what you have. In effect, they want to set a good example for citizens that want leadership when it comes to how to deal with finances.

In both cases where this happened (i.e. 2010 and 2014), the establishment GOP has thrown a fit. Taxed Enough Already gave in the first time, and it cost them the Presidential election in 2012 (regardless of what you believe about Bilderberg). This time, they're more wise, and know not to be run over by the establishment GOP. McCarthy wisely backed off because he knew T.E.A. wasn't going to accept the establishment. Boner's throwing a fit and cancelling the speaker election because he doesn't truly want to give up the establishment, because he knows the New World Order plan is barely hanging on with the right wing (something the Bush family had good control of, given they are part of it), and is doing everything he can to make sure it stays. Could this open the country up to another false flag attack that will re-establish the establishment?
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

FlagDUDE08 said:
You're missing the point. Any debt limit increase shows fiscal irresponsibility.
Click to expand...

No, NO, NO!!!

This is money already obligated! Raising the debt ceiling is not spending. God, this needs to be engraved on every conservative's gun so he can see it when he's fondling it.

Limiting your spending is fiscally responsible. Not paying your godd-mned credit card is just being a deadbeat!
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Kepler said:
No, NO, NO!!!

This is money already obligated! Raising the debt ceiling is not spending. God, this needs to be engraved on every conservative's gun so he can see it when he's fondling it.

Limiting your spending is fiscally responsible. Not paying your godd-mned credit card is just being a deadbeat!
Click to expand...

This.
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Kepler said:
No, NO, NO!!!

This is money already obligated! Raising the debt ceiling is not spending. God, this needs to be engraved on every conservative's gun so he can see it when he's fondling it.

Limiting your spending is fiscally responsible. Not paying your godd-mned credit card is just being a deadbeat!
Click to expand...

THIS!!!!!!!!

BOOM goes the dynamite.
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Has a Speaker ever been from the minority party of the House?

I know every Speaker has been from the House (despite there being no requirement for him or her to come from the House)
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Two things should happen:

1) GOP should split in two as they're too divided to function as a cohesive unit. This would turn the Congress into the UK House of Commons, with two main parties but several others that can crop up and make a difference in a coalition if needed. The danger of this is if you turn into Italy or Israel, where there's too many parties with narrow interests but nobody can get a majority on their own.

In the event #1 doesn't happen (and its highly unlikely), then

2) Elect an uber-nutter as Speaker (Goehmert, Chaffetz, Blackburn, whoever). Then, the dwindling # of moderates left in the GOP need to unite with Dems on discharge petitions to get House business done. This would merely require 20 of them out of 240+. Knuckledraggers can spend all day passing go nowhere legislation with control of House leadership, while real business gets done without them. Yes, it takes some coordination but its high time somebody on the right takes a stand. I keep hearing from pundidiots and many a USCHO poster that a handful of crazies are highjacking the process. Their willingness to take this legal action which has precedent would help prove, or disprove, that point.
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Oh boy.

In the hours before House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) abruptly withdrew his candidacy to be the next speaker of the House, he was sent an email from a conservative activist threatening to expose an alleged affair with a colleague. The subject line: “Kevin, why not resign like Bob Livingston?”

The email, sent just after 8 a.m. on Thursday, came from Steve Baer, a Chicago-based GOP donor known for mass-emailing conservative figures and Republican lawmakers. It was addressed to McCarthy and numerous others, including the personal account of Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.), who conservative media sites have suggested is tied romantically to McCarthy.
Click to expand...
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

dxmnkd316 said:
Has a Speaker ever been from the minority party of the House?

I know every Speaker has been from the House (despite there being no requirement for him or her to come from the House)
Click to expand...

This portion of the Wikipedia article on the Speaker is quite good.

Nothing prevents a speaker from being elected from the minority party if she gets enough turncoat votes from majority members. The Constitution does not specify how the House chooses the Speaker, merely that it does. Except in very unusual circumstances this has meant by majority vote, hence the current 218 requirement (the House, when there are no vacancies, has 435 members).

Here's one particularly bizarre instance in which they could not achieve a majority and settled for a plurality election:

Another, more prolonged fight occurred in 1855 in the 34th United States Congress. The old Whig Party had collapsed but no single party had emerged to replace it. Candidates opposing the Democrats had run under a bewildering variety of labels, including Whig, Republican, American (Know Nothing), and simply "Opposition". By the time Congress actually met in December 1855, most of the northerners were concentrated together as Republicans, while most of the southerners and a few northerners used the American or Know Nothing label. Opponents of the Democrats held a majority in House, with the party makeup of the 234 Representatives being 83 Democrats, 108 Republicans, and 43 Know Nothings (primarily southern oppositionists). The Democratic minority nominated William Alexander Richardson of Illinois as Speaker, but because of sectional distrust, the various oppositionists were unable to agree on a single candidate for Speaker. The Republicans supported Nathaniel Prentiss Banks of Massachusetts, who had been elected as a Know Nothing but was now largely identified with the Republicans. The southern Know Nothings supported first Humphrey Marshall of Kentucky, and then Henry M. Fuller of Pennsylvania. The voting went on for almost two months with no candidate able to secure a majority, until it was finally agreed to elect the Speaker by plurality vote, and Banks was elected.
Click to expand...

So Banks was technically a minority speaker, as he was elected as a Know Nothing, which at less than 1/5th of the House had only the third-largest conference, though he caucused with the Republicans, who were a plurality (but not a majority) caucus.

Just four years later in 1859 they had a similar cluster-f-ck.

So, the good news is it's actually been worse before. The bad news is, how'd that work out?
 
Last edited:
Kepler said:
No, NO, NO!!!

This is money already obligated! Raising the debt ceiling is not spending. God, this needs stepe engraved on every conservative's gun so he can see it when he's fondling it.

Limiting your spending is fiscally responsible. Not paying your godd-mned credit card is just being a deadbeat!
Click to expand...

Authorized, obligated, or expended?

DANNGER! ACCOUNTANT SPEAK!!!!

Authorizations give you the authority to spend the money. These bills originate in the various congressional committees. They're pretty, but you can't do much with an authorization.

The true power come from the House Ways and Means or Senate Appropriations committees. They give you the authority to spend money up to what they tell you, not what was authorized.

But you still can't do anything because you don't have the money to spend. For that you need the warrent from the Treasury to put money (quarterly, semiannually, or annually) into your cash account. Keep this number in mind it becomes important later. Every $$ that goes into your warrant takes cash from the overall government cash account.

The government gets cash from taxes, duties, fines among the usual sources. If that amount is insufficient, then the Treasury has to borrow money to get more cash. This borrowing affects the debt ceiling.

After a few intermediate steps done in the budget office, I can now spend money for what Congress allowed. Budget puts the money into your allocation account (ledger account 4601).

First I commit the funds. This rather useless step says you have sufficient funds remaining to spend.

Now that the funds have been committed, you can contract to spend them via a grant, purchase order, travel order and the like. Guess what? You can always change the amount if it hasn't been spent. It is a sin to obligate (contract) out more money than you have your allocation. It can be very embarrassing if you are over obligated at the end of the quarter.

Now comes cash out the door. When you pay somebody either by drawing down on one of the above instruments or using a government credit/travel card or biweekly payroll, you finally draw down on the cash in the your bank account. It is a grave sin to overdraw your cash. People can get fired.

Total obligations = obligations (ledger accounts 4801 & 4802) + expenditures (4901 & 4902). Total obligations cannot exceed the allocation (4601) from budget. And the allocation cannot exceed your warrant.

If you're coming close to your balance, you have to stop paying bills or cancel contracts or cancel travel.

END ACCOUNT SPEAK

Any contract has a clause, "subject to available funds." If there isn't any money, you deobligate the contract to get under the ceiling, or you don't pay the invoice (which subjects you to prompt payment penalties).

So,in the end,the Federal government should live within its means. That is not saying debt is bad. As ordinary citizens we have good debt and bad debt. Good debt could be classified as mortgages and car loans. Bad debt could be classified as credit card debt.

Uncle Sam borrowing money to build a building is an example of good debt. Borrowing money to pay your ordinary bills is had debt.

That's why you have to look at the US debt. If was incurred to pay current bills,I have problems. If it was to build a building, no problem.
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Kepler said:
Oh boy.
Click to expand...

Yeah....it just seemed like "not winning over the Freedom Caucus" wasn't enough to send the guy packing. He always knew he wasn't going to win their initial vote and would have to negotiate with them before the public vote at the end of the month. Not sure if this particular allegation with Ellmers is true but if he's banging his secretary instead he has the same problem.
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

joecct said:
Authorized, obligated, or expended?

DANNGER! ACCOUNTANT SPEAK!!!!

Authorizations give you the authority to spend the money. These bills originate in the various congressional committees. They're pretty, but you can't do much with an authorization.

The true power come from the House Ways and Means or Senate Appropriations committees. They give you the authority to spend money up to what they tell you, not what was authorized.

But you still can't do anything because you don't have the money to spend. For that you need the warrent from the Treasury to put money (quarterly, semiannually, or annually) into your cash account. Keep this number in mind it becomes important later. Every $$ that goes into your warrant takes cash from the overall government cash account.

The government gets cash from taxes, duties, fines among the usual sources. If that amount is insufficient, then the Treasury has to borrow money to get more cash. This borrowing affects the debt ceiling.

After a few intermediate steps done in the budget office, I can now spend money for what Congress allowed. Budget puts the money into your allocation account (ledger account 4601).

First I commit the funds. This rather useless step says you have sufficient funds remaining to spend.

Now that the funds have been committed, you can contract to spend them via a grant, purchase order, travel order and the like. Guess what? You can always change the amount if it hasn't been spent. It is a sin to obligate (contract) out more money than you have your allocation. It can be very embarrassing if you are over obligated at the end of the quarter.

Now comes cash out the door. When you pay somebody either by drawing down on one of the above instruments or using a government credit/travel card or biweekly payroll, you finally draw down on the cash in the your bank account. It is a grave sin to overdraw your cash. People can get fired.

Total obligations = obligations (ledger accounts 4801 & 4802) + expenditures (4901 & 4902). Total obligations cannot exceed the allocation (4601) from budget. And the allocation cannot exceed your warrant.

If you're coming close to your balance, you have to stop paying bills or cancel contracts or cancel travel.

END ACCOUNT SPEAK

Any contract has a clause, "subject to available funds." If there isn't any money, you deobligate the contract to get under the ceiling, or you don't pay the invoice (which subjects you to prompt payment penalties).

So,in the end,the Federal government should live within its means. That is not saying debt is bad. As ordinary citizens we have good debt and bad debt. Good debt could be classified as mortgages and car loans. Bad debt could be classified as credit card debt.

Uncle Sam borrowing money to build a building is an example of good debt. Borrowing money to pay your ordinary bills is had debt.

That's why you have to look at the US debt. If was incurred to pay current bills,I have problems. If it was to build a building, no problem.
Click to expand...

This is excellent, thank you.

How does the debt ceiling factor into the above discussion? When the government is running up debt it means its total obligations are more than the amount of cash it has on hand, right? The debt ceiling seems to be an unnecessary and fictitious limit to this number. The limiting should take place much earlier. The government estimates its revenue and then approves a budget -- if that budget is in deficit then that is the point where the government is in fact defining the amount of debt it is willing to accrue.

You get to choose not to spend the money when you're out shopping, not when the bill comes. It you fail to honor the bill you're not living within your means, you're just a bad credit risk.
 
joecct said:
Authorized, obligated, or expended?

DANNGER! ACCOUNTANT SPEAK!!!!

Authorizations give you the authority to spend the money. These bills originate in the various congressional committees. They're pretty, but you can't do much with an authorization.

The true power come from the House Ways and Means or Senate Appropriations committees. They give you the authority to spend money up to what they tell you, not what was authorized.

But you still can't do anything because you don't have the money to spend. For that you need the warrent from the Treasury to put money (quarterly, semiannually, or annually) into your cash account. Keep this number in mind it becomes important later. Every $$ that goes into your warrant takes cash from the overall government cash account.

The government gets cash from taxes, duties, fines among the usual sources. If that amount is insufficient, then the Treasury has to borrow money to get more cash. This borrowing affects the debt ceiling.

After a few intermediate steps done in the budget office, I can now spend money for what Congress allowed. Budget puts the money into your allocation account (ledger account 4601).

First I commit the funds. This rather useless step says you have sufficient funds remaining to spend.

Now that the funds have been committed, you can contract to spend them via a grant, purchase order, travel order and the like. Guess what? You can always change the amount if it hasn't been spent. It is a sin to obligate (contract) out more money than you have your allocation. It can be very embarrassing if you are over obligated at the end of the quarter.

Now comes cash out the door. When you pay somebody either by drawing down on one of the above instruments or using a government credit/travel card or biweekly payroll, you finally draw down on the cash in the your bank account. It is a grave sin to overdraw your cash. People can get fired.

Total obligations = obligations (ledger accounts 4801 & 4802) + expenditures (4901 & 4902). Total obligations cannot exceed the allocation (4601) from budget. And the allocation cannot exceed your warrant.

If you're coming close to your balance, you have to stop paying bills or cancel contracts or cancel travel.

END ACCOUNT SPEAK

Any contract has a clause, "subject to available funds." If there isn't any money, you deobligate the contract to get under the ceiling, or you don't pay the invoice (which subjects you to prompt payment penalties).

So,in the end,the Federal government should live within its means. That is not saying debt is bad. As ordinary citizens we have good debt and bad debt. Good debt could be classified as mortgages and car loans. Bad debt could be classified as credit card debt.

Uncle Sam borrowing money to build a building is an example of good debt. Borrowing money to pay your ordinary bills is had debt.

That's why you have to look at the US debt. If was incurred to pay current bills,I have problems. If it was to build a building, no problem.
Click to expand...

That's nice and all, but it had nothing to do with the debt ceiling, which is an artificial construct that, as Kepler has put it, is simply the government agreeing to pay what it already owes. Everything you're referencing is part of the budgeting process. If you think the debt is bad, then stop passing budgets that increase the debt.
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Rover said:
Yeah....it just seemed like "not winning over the Freedom Caucus" wasn't enough to send the guy packing. He always knew he wasn't going to win their initial vote and would have to negotiate with them before the public vote at the end of the month. Not sure if this particular allegation with Ellmers is true but if he's banging his secretary instead he has the same problem.
Click to expand...

I'm shocked it got to the point that the guy actually sent the note (and apparently e-blasted half of the Hill with it). Trent Lott would have gotten it all done on the D/L. Just another instance of today's pols not being even a shadow of their predecessors. Can't anybody here play this game?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top