politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Quiet simple, because there's a bunch of nutjob republicans that want to cut everything possible yet are willing to settle for temporary stopgap measures. They nearly killed the CR and would have had trump not explicitly pressured them to pass the bill.
Passing a full funding bill would have been harder to get the nutjobs to sign on. Passing a dirty CR with explicit cuts and power grants to the president, however, was enough to win them over.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5178543-house-conservatives-working-toward-cr-after-meeting-with-trump/
Again, the schumer "A shutdown will give trump more power" messaging is a lie. Trump had an active role in getting this bill passed.
So you agree that it’s temporary? Isn’t that the point you challenged?
Again, it is not a lie. EO 14210 provides Trump with the ability to terminate non-essential government employees if any of three conditions are not met, and funding is one of them.
Read it for yourself: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/don-t-use-shutdown-plans-to-slash-the-federal-workforce
FFS I've already covered this while talking about the bill. It had riders ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rider_(legislation) ) that gave the admin addition discretion over the budget. Those riders are not temporary.
And I already covered EOs if you bothered to read.
You are now purposely being obtuse because you don't want to accept that schumer did something moronic.
He helped the republicans pass a bill that Trump wanted them to pass. End of story.
I understand the riders aren’t temporary, but the budget itself is. That means there will be another chance at a shutdown in September. I don’t need you to explain how this works. I need you to explain why you think it’s a better choice to give Trump the ability to indiscriminately terminate non-essential government employees than to have control of the budget. It’s your opinion that I find elusive, not the facts.
Who do you think has control of the budget? Do you really think that by rolling over and giving Trump everything he wants now Schumer will somehow have control of anything in September?
And why do you think passing the CR will stop Trump and Musk from terminating anyone they want? They're still doing that.
AN EXECUTIVE ORDER IS NOT LEGALLY BINDING.
TRUMP SIGNING ONE DOESN'T MAGICALLY GRANT HIM LEGAL POWER TO INDISCRIMINATELY TERMINATE EMPLOYEES.
Your opinion that an EO is somehow more scary than a bill that grants the powers of the EO to the president is what's entirely insane.
You aren't concerned with facts as you've been corrected not just by me but multiple other people throughout this comment chain. You just want to believe schumer didn't do something stupid.
I wholeheartedly wanted to understand your opinion. I’m no fan of Schumer. Everyone withdrew but him and Gillibrand in the primary, so I didn’t have much of a choice. Regardless, he’s my Senator, and I message and call his office often. I appreciate your point about the EO. At the end of the day, it really is no different than the others being challenged in court. That’s a valid point I’ll be taking up with his office later today. Thank you for taking the time to explain your perspective. Sorry if I frustrated you.
ALL spending bills are "temporary" in that they don't provide unlimited funds for forever. The CR doesn't say, "give as much money as is needed until September." It says "we allocated $XXXX". And since we know how to predict how much money the government spends, we know that amount of money will run out in September.
This is the same way it works if they passed an appropriations bill. The only difference is that they based spending levels on the previous spending bills rather than on a budget bill.