"Pass this bill"

[maxiep]

http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/14/you-must-prove-your-love-for-obama-america/

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Again, where is Obama's bill? I agree with some of what you're saying, but this entire PASS THIS BILL bullshit is political theatre and should be mocked. Even the Dems aren't gong to pass it, if it is even introduced.

You have a problem with what the Rep did; I don't and I applaud him for pointing out that there IS NO BILL TO PASS. To me, it seems ridiculous to have a President screaming PASS THIS BILL for a week now on the campaign trail, er "jobs tour", when there is still no bill to pass, and a bill hasn't even been scored by the CBO.

So is safe to assume papag would like us to disregard rants like this for the past couple of days?

Papag, first there was some thread where you claimed it was the first time you knew Miller hadn't made it past the first round only to have someone show you started a thread about it months earlier. Now you been ranting nonstop about no bill for a couple of days (thanks for clarifying DC).

I think you are one of the more entertaining posters here (that is a good thing), but it's getting hard to believe anything in your posts these days . . . come on you are better than this.

 

[PapaG]

So is safe to assume papag would like us to disregard rants like this for the past couple of days?

Papag, first there was some thread where you claimed it was the first time you knew Miller hadn't made it past the first round only to have someone show you started a thread about it months earlier. Now you been ranting nonstop about no bill for a couple of days (thanks for clarifying DC).

I think you are one of the more entertaining posters here (that is a good thing), but it's getting hard to believe anything in your posts these days . . . come on you are better than this.

Where is the spending bill for the House to pass? How can the bill become law when the side of congress it must originate in doesn't even have the bill for an up/down vote. The President is yelling PASS THIS BILL, but that isn't even possible at this point because it doesn't exist in the House.

Introducing it in the Senate is just more political posturing, because they can't really do anything with it until the House gets it and the CBO scores it.

So, can I disregard the silly rant you just posted?

 

[Denny Crane]

The house has a rules committee that decides how a bill can be introduced. Since it's controlled by the republicans, they can delay it's introduction.

There us an actual bill in written form in the hands of people in both houses of congress. I don't see where there's any hay to be made here.

 

[Masbee]

Taxing corporations is stupid, sorry. Whatever tax you think they're paying, they pass on to all of us as higher prices. In effect, taxing them is just taxing us.

Yeah, ok. If you say so.

The largest GDP growth in the US was during a period of high corporate rates and high corporate tax receipts. So, I am not so sure it is a simple as you claim.

Corporations are a creation of the state. Corporations are gifted with limited liability to the shareholders and many other special privileges. The should pay for the special gifts they receive.

Otherwise, screw the whole thing and eliminate Corporate franchise. No limited liability. No corporate taxes. How does that suit you?

 

[PapaG]

The house has a rules committee that decides how a bill can be introduced. Since it's controlled by the republicans, they can delay it's introduction.
There us an actual bill in written form in the hands of people in both houses of congress. I don't see where there's any hay to be made here.

The point is that not a single Democrat has tried to introduce it, nor has it been assigned a HR#, so blaming the GOP for there being no bill is disingenuous at best.

You knew that, though. Either that or you're clueless on how the House works, which I don't believe.

There is no bill to pass in the House, there is no bill to delay in the House, because the bill hasn't even been introduced at the committee level. Blaming that on the GOP is just plain dishonest by you.

 

[PapaG]

There us an actual bill in written form in the hands of people in both houses of congress.

There isn't though. There is no bill in the House that can be scored by the CBO or voted on by the House.

Why are you lying about it?

 

[3RA1N1AC]

wait, is there a bill or not, because someone told me to pass it

 

[PapaG]

Denny's logic:

It's the GOP's fault that not a single Dem has introduced Obama's bill in the House.

Let's go back to PoliSci 101, shall we?

In the House, any member may introduce a bill by dropping it into a box, called a hopper.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_is_a_bill_introduced_in_the_house_and_senate#ixzz1Y3z6v1ii

You're wrong, Denny. All a Dem needs to do is get the bill in the hopper, get it assigned a HR#, and then send it to committee. If the GOP stalls it there, that's on the GOP, but we're not even at that point.

The fact that Harry Reid introduced a revenue bill in the Senate was a mere political stunt, which is why hardly anybody heard about it. Looks like he fooled you, though.

 

[blazerboy30]

wait, is there a bill or not, because someone told me to pass it

If you love me, you'll pass it.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

when you say love you, do you mean make love TO you? or be IN love with you? i hate to argue semantics an all but....

 

[Denny Crane]

Denny's logic:

It's the GOP's fault that not a single Dem has introduced Obama's bill in the House.

Let's go back to PoliSci 101, shall we?




You're wrong, Denny. All a Dem needs to do is get the bill in the hopper, get it assigned a HR#, and then send it to committee. If the GOP stalls it there, that's on the GOP, but we're not even at that point.

The fact that Harry Reid introduced a revenue bill in the Senate was a mere political stunt, which is why hardly anybody heard about it. Looks like he fooled you, though.

My logic is that it would be tabled in committee so there's no real point to it. However, if the Senate passes the bill, then they can make some noise about it in the house.

And maybe Democrats actually want to read all 1500 pages of it this time before considering it.

In any case, if you want to read the bill, go for it. You can't keep saying there isn't one.

 

[PapaG]

My logic is that it would be tabled in committee so there's no real point to it.

LOL

Nice spin. If the GOP tables it, the Dems can kick and scream about it and call the GOP obstructionists. The President is traveling the country touting his bill, and you think the GOP would table it without giving it an up/down vote? That's preposterous.

You were wrong, and you obviously didn't know how a bill gets introduced in the House.

My logic is that it hasn't been introduced in the House because Obama doesn't even have the majority of Dems as a "yes" vote, and a large rebuke of his bill by his own party would cripple his presidency.

 

[Denny Crane]

LOL

Nice spin. If the GOP tables it, the Dems can kick and scream about it and call the GOP obstructionists. You were wrong, and you obviously didn't know how a bill gets introduced in the House.

They're already kicking and screaming. They can't say "the senate already passed the bill."

 

[PapaG]

Hell, the Senate Dems don't even have the votes.

As President Obama continued to tout his new jobs bill campaign-style in the battleground state of Ohio, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., focusing instead on a potential disaster relief fight with Republicans, was unable to outline a path forward for the $447 billion plan.

"I don't know exactly what I'm going to do yet with the president's jobs bill, but we're going to have a full caucus meeting on it on Thurs," Reid told reporters, saying merely that he had introduced the bill Tuesday. A number of Democrats have previously opposed some of the ideas in the bill.

When asked if he had the votes to pass the legislation as is, the leader said only, "We'll see probably at later time."

Reid plans a briefing for his Democrats Thursday from White House officials "for people who don't understand it," and leadership aides tell Fox that committee chairs have been encouraged to hold hearings, though none have yet been announced.

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2...re-if-obamas-jobs-bill-can-pass#ixzz1Y4FKMsTW

 

[PapaG]

They're already kicking and screaming. They can't say "the senate already passed the bill."

The Senate hasn't passed the bill. What are you talking about? You're not making any sense.

 

[Denny Crane]

Oh, I thought you meant the House, which is where spending bills must originate.

Kind of hard to PASS THIS SPENDING BILL when it hasn't been introduced in the House, but whatever.

Spending bills do not have to originate in the house.

Article I, Section 7 reads:

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Raising revenue isn't spending, it's taxing.

 

[Denny Crane]

The Senate hasn't passed the bill. What are you talking about? You're not making any sense.

They're going to try and pass it through the senate first. I said "they can't say the senate has already passed the bill" (yet) -- get it?

 

[PapaG]

Spending bills do not have to originate in the house.

Article I, Section 7 reads:

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Raising revenue isn't spending, it's taxing.

There are tax increases in this bill. Hence, it's a revenue bill.

 

[PapaG]

They're going to try and pass it through the senate first. I said "they can't say the senate has already passed the bill" (yet) -- get it?

Wanna bet? The Senate isn't even going to have a vote on it, at least in its present form.

 

[PapaG]

Flanked at the White House by workers he said the legislation would help, Obama declared, "This is the bill that Congress needs to pass. No games. No politics. No delays." He sent it to Capitol Hill saying, "The only thing that's stopping it is politics."

4 days later, not a single Dem has introduced it in the House.

 

[blazerboy30]

when you say love you, do you mean make love TO you? or be IN love with you? i hate to argue semantics an all but....

Let's not continue worrying about semantics. I just want this bill passed.

 

[PapaG]

Let's not continue worrying about semantics. I just want this bill passed.

If you really love me, you'll introduce this bill for me in the House.

 

[blazerboy30]

If you really love me, you'll introduce this bill for me in the House.

You're just being an obstructionist. Pass this bill.

 

[Denny Crane]

There are tax increases in this bill. Hence, it's a revenue bill.

http://rpc.senate.gov/releases/1999/fg060100.htm

The Senate, the Constitution, and Spending Bills

[Editor's Note: On May 24 on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) made an important point about Senate prerogatives with regard to the annual appropriations bills. What follows is his (slightly edited) floor statement.]

On Wednesday, May 17, the distinguished Senate minority leader announced, "I am going to demand that every single appropriations bill that comes to the Senate before it can be completed be passed in the House first because that is regular order." He repeated, "We are going to require the regular order when it comes to appropriations bills." The Senator refers to the origination clause of our Constitution [Art. 1, Sec. 7, Cl. 1.] The origination clause states, "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." The meaning of this clause is widely known, and I do not know why the distinguished minority leader would attempt to make an erroneous claim before those who know better.

When I open Riddick's Senate Procedure [p. 153], I read, "In 1935, the Chair ruled that there is no Constitutional limitation upon the Senate to initiate an appropriation bill." The House does claim "the exclusive right to originate all general appropriations bills." Specific appropriations, however, "have frequently originated in the Senate." If the Senator intends to say that there is no precedent for the initiation of appropriation bills in the Senate, that is false.

Perhaps there is some confusion between "raising revenue" and "appropriating". The former the Senate cannot do. The latter it can.

The courts agree with these constitutional interpretations. In fact, as recently as 1989, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth District in U.S. v. King, 891 F.2d 780, 781 ruled that where a bill does not qualify as a revenue bill, it is not subject to the provisions of the origination clause. The United States Supreme Court, in Twin City Nat. Bank of New Brighton v. Nebecker, 167 U.S. 196, 202. ruled in an 1897 decision, which is cited as precedent to this day, that "revenue bills are those that levy taxes, in the strict sense of the word, and are not bills for other purposes which may incidentally create revenue." On another occasion, the Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Norton, 91 U.S. 566, 569 (1875) said that "[t]he construction of the [origination clause] limitation is practically well settled by the uniform action of Congress" and that "it 'has been confined to bills to levy taxes in the strict sense of the word, and has not been understood to extend to bills for other purposes which incidentally create revenue.' "

It was not the intent of our Founding Fathers not to allow the Senate to decide how to spend government monies. Obviously, we must do that. Almost every action we take requires some money to be spent. What the Founding Fathers wanted to achieve with the origination clause was a check on government by which the most representative body had to authorize the extraction from the people of taxes.

The only obstacle I know of to the Senate passing certain appropriation bills is the objection of the distinguished minority leader. He claims, "This is getting to be more and more a second House of Representatives." Who is making it so, I ask.

 

[PapaG]

http://rpc.senate.gov/releases/1999/fg060100.htm

Neat stuff.

Meanwhile, when do we make the bet on the Senate voting on the exact Obama Jobs bill that Reid introduced?

And how long until that exact bill is introduced in the House? The Dems internal polling on this must be giving an answer of "career suicide" if they support this bill.

 

[PapaG]

You're just being an obstructionist. Pass this bill.

Every member of this House has the bill in their hands. If they love me, they should pass it before introducing it.

 

[PapaG]

The pesky GOP obstructionists!!

Side note - Denny, no bet on Obama's bill, as written and as Obama wants to be PASSED with no delays, getting an up/down vote in the Senate?

Senator Casey Breaks With President Over Jobs Bill

PITTSBURGH (KDKA) — Pennsylvania’s senior Democratic official is breaking away from President Obama when it comes to his jobs bill.

U.S. Sen. Bob Casey says the president’s legislative strategy won’t work.

Casey was one of the first Democrats to endorse Barack Obama, but now he thinks the president’s jobs bill needs to be broken apart, he told KDKA Political Editor Jon Delano.

“I’m afraid if we tried to pass one big bill, I think there’s a lot of skepticism about big pieces of legislation with all kinds of different component parts. We should break this up.”

...continued at link...

 

[Denny Crane]

The pesky GOP obstructionists!!

Side note - Denny, no bet on Obama's bill, as written and as Obama wants to be PASSED with no delays, getting an up/down vote in the Senate?

Most bills aren't passed as initially proposed. I don't see what you're making a fuss about.

Bush declared the situation was so dire that congress had just the weekend to pass a 2 or 3 page TARP bill. It didn't pass over the weekend, and it wasn't just 2-3 pages when it did pass.

If you want to talk about the merits of the proposals or the politics of it, we might agree.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Most bills aren't passed as initially proposed. I don't see what you're making a fuss about.

Bush declared the situation was so dire that congress had just the weekend to pass a 2 or 3 page TARP bill. It didn't pass over the weekend, and it wasn't just 2-3 pages when it did pass.

If you want to talk about the merits of the proposals or the politics of it, we might agree.

Wait, you mean politicians play politics with bills before they are passed?!?

Papa G did you know about this because this is new to me.