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
Again, if it were so true and advanced Trump's goals, why didn't he veto the CR? Why did he push republicans to vote for it? Why was the Federal Workers Union opposed to it passing?
You edited up above that "it's temporary". No, it isn't. It wasn't a clean CR and it vested a lot more power into the administration to make budget decisions. A shutdown would have been temporary, but it also would have caused a massive shock to the stock market (which is almost certainly the real reason Schumer and crew voted for it).
Why are you calling the propaganda office to get answers? Do you think Schumer's staffers are going to tell you anything other than "This was the absolute most perfect and most bestest thing Schumer could have done!". It's literally their jobs to justify Schumers actions.
This bill supercharged and codified the DOGE actions. Now, instead of having any sort of leverage to stop the Trump admin and Elon from their actions. Instead of strong arming the republicans to actually compromise on SOMETHING in the budget bill. Schumer and crew have given them everything they asked for and they walked away with smiles on their faces. Literally. Republican senators were shocked and delighted it went through.
All but 1 house democrat voted against this. All but 10 senate democrats voted against this. The vast majority of democrats in congress understood that this was a really dumb bill to let through. Stop listening to Schumer propaganda and just think about this. Schumer, as the senate majority leader, went against the will of his party.
You don’t understand what a CR is if you think it’s permanent. A continuing resolution is stopgap funding when a budget reconciliation fails to be passed.
Read the link I provided. It explains how Trump’s existing executive order grants him the ability to refuse return on non-essential employees under three conditions. A lack of funding is one of them.
As for why he didn’t veto, I honestly don’t know. It’s a good question. Maybe he’s trying to win his indiscriminate termination hearings in appeal first? He’ll have another chance in September, since the CR is temporary.
You don't understand how Congress works. A CR isn't used when Budget Reconciliation isn't passed. It's used when spending bills don't pass.
The "normal' (or what's supposed to be normal) process for funding the government is that the Congress passes a Budget, which is a set of funding guidelines, but doesn't actually allocate money. That budget is then used by various committees to write appropriations bills, which is what actually allows the government to spend money. Those spending bills are typically supposed to only cover 1 year, with new appropriations given every year.
Except Congress has been a dysfunctional mess for decades. They rarely actually pass Budget or appropriations bills. That's why we're always under these shutdown threats, because Congress doesn't work as it's supposed to. So when they come down to crunch time and can't pass spending bills, they pass a Continuing Resolution (CR). A CR is an appropriations bill, but instead of using a recent budget as a guideline, the CR just says "continue funding the government at the exact levels it was with these minor adjustments" (usually cutting funding by 2-5% and/or increasing in specific areas, like disaster relief if there was just a hurricane or something).
A CR, just like a normal appropriations bill, funds only to a set level. They don't have a time limit in that they say "funding will stop on X date", but they know how fast the government spends money, so they can predict that $XXX will last YYY days. In that way, they can say "fund $XXX worth" knowing that will expire on a certain date. CRs are just as "permanent" as any appropriations bill
A Budget Reconciliation is a completely different thing. It's a process that allows the Senate to adjust existing spending bills while bypassing the 60 vote threshold for cloture required by the filibuster rules. When the Congress writes a spending bill, they include language within it to say, "this portion of the budget can later be adjusted through reconciliation". The intention is to strip out particularly contentious parts of the larger bill to allow the larger bill to pass while letting Congress then address the stickier issue on its own. So, for example, you don't have to hold up funding national parks just because you can't decide how much to spend on a new military drone program, for example.
However, since Reconciliation allows the majority party to bypass the filibuster, it's use is primarily to pass legislation that the majority knows they can't do through normal legislation (due to the 60 vote threshold the filibuster puts on everything). There are certain rules which I can get into if you want that limit what types of things can be done through reconciliation and how often. But your framing in your comment above about how CRs are supposedly temporary until a Reconciliation Bill is passed is just flat out wrong.
A CR is just a title applied to a bill. This wasn't a CR, it was named a CR. Just calling something a "CR" means nothing. If this were actually a CR the dems in the house and most of the senate dems would not have opposed it.
As for Trump's executive orders, those are just decrees that can be legally challenged. Much like Trump decreeing "The 14th amendment no longer counts" just saying it doesn't make it so.
Again, Even if we take the veto out of the equation, have you thought about why the Federal Workers union was opposed to this "CR"? Why would the union for the workers that would have been most impacted by a shutdown oppose a simple stopgap CR?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/federal-employees-union-tells-congress-132950031.html
False. You need to learn the difference between a continuing resolution and a budget reconciliation bill.
https://www.pgpf.org/article/what-is-a-continuing-resolution/
False, you need to learn what bills are and how they get their titles.
Again, just calling something a CR doesn't make it one. Budget reconciliation bills are different as they get special privileges in the senate (no filibuster). Anything else can be called whatever you like. There's no special law or rule that governs what can and can't be called a CR. That's why this is being referred to by democrats as "a dirty CR".
https://www.coons.senate.gov/news/press-releases/ranking-member-coons-announces-opposition-to-house-republicans-dirty-cr
Then why does this only fund the government through September, rather than the full calendar?
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.
You have no clue what you're talking about, which is demonstrated by your repeated use of the term "budget reconciliation bill" as if it applies to anything here. The budget reconciliation process can only happen after an appropriation bill is passed, which this CR was.