20
   

Paul Ryan Announces He Won't Work With President

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2015 03:56 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
The extended media honeymoon of Paul Ryan, the zombie-eyed granny starver from the state of Wisconsin and the first runner-up in our most recent vice-presidential pageant, a honeymoon that never has really ended, has reached a new level of intensity now that Ryan graciously has assumed the position of Speaker of the House of Representatives. It is said that Ryan, the biggest fake in the history of recent American politics, was the only Republican capable of reuniting the House majority, which is not a very good idea, because a fractious, disunited GOP majority often was the only thing standing between the country and some truly bad ideas, many of which Paul Ryan has spent a political lifetime supporting. I, for one, was all in favor of an unruly, undisciplined mob as opposed to organized, disciplined chicanery, like we're seeing at the moment with a couple of vital pieces of legislation.


Charles P. Pierce has been a working journalist since 1976. He is the author of four books, most recently 'Idiot America.' He lives near Boston with his wife but no longer his three children.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a39443/paul-ryan-house-extremists/

Here is another one who believes that Ryan is better at getting things done than Boehner.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2015 04:59 pm
@hawkeye10,
Unless the government passes laws, all spending will stop. It would be disastrous for the country. They HAVE to pass laws as Finn has already agreed they must.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2015 05:02 pm
@hawkeye10,
It seems you don't do sarcasm, hawk. Read Charlie Pierce's piece again.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2015 05:06 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

It seems you don't do sarcasm, hawk. Read Charlie Pierce's piece again.

I read it just fine, he is getting his panties in a twist because he fears Ryan being successful where Boehner was n0t. That was my point. THe rest of what he thinks I read but found nothing interesting about.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2015 05:14 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Unless the government passes laws, all spending will stop. It would be disastrous for the country. They HAVE to pass laws as Finn has already agreed they must.


Using a strict interpretation of the definition of the law sure, but most people consider "new law" to be new orders to the collective on how to operate, not the budget mechanism. And you are still wrong, because one of the jobs of Congress is to oversee the executive branch, and nothing that could remotely be called a law is required to do that, so they could be still doing something while passing no laws because no appropriations does not mean that everyone goes home. Only non essential employees are sent home.

Quote:
. Individual members and committee chairs will decide which staffers are "essential" and need to stay on during the shutdown (with retroactive pay) and which staffers get sent home. The latter might get back pay later on, but that's up to Congress.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/10/01/congress-gets-paid-during-a-shutdown-while-staffers-dont-heres-why/
parados
 
  3  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2015 05:42 pm
@hawkeye10,
A new law is anything that is passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. An old law is something that was previously passed by both houses and signed by the President. It will never have to go through that process again.

I guess if we just throw all meaning out the window then you can argue that Congress doesn't pass legislation when they vote on it and it doesn't become new law when the President signs it or has his veto overridden.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  5  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2015 05:54 pm
@hawkeye10,
By the way, the budget is rarely made into law. It is an agreement between the 2 houses and doesn't need a President's signature. Appropriation bills are made into law.

Quote:

And you are still wrong, because one of the jobs of Congress is to oversee the executive branch, and nothing that could remotely be called a law is required to do that,
If there is no law than the Executive branch has little reason to comply with anything the Congress requests or wishes to investigate. The courts have ruled that Congress can only investigate to further legislation. You know, that thing called LAWS?

http://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation05.html

It seems you feel you can just make crap up and change the meanings of words as you desire and we should accept your idiocy as some learned adjudication of what reality is.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2015 06:02 pm
@parados,
Quote:
By the way, the budget is rarely made into law

We have been through this before, to non elites " budget" is both the deciding and the spending. "But but but you are not using the " correct" words, you must be stupid" mocking from the elite is well past its expiration date. It goes in the abuse of language file. You know what was being said, but you pretend otherwise because you are desperate to demean those who dont agree with you. It is called being a prick.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2015 07:19 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
The rise of Rep. Paul Ryan to speaker of the House marks the demise of a venerable congressional institution: the speaker’s monthly expense check.

Ryan spokesman Brendan Buck told USA TODAY the Wisconsin Republican will not be accepting the $2,000 monthly check that Speaker John Boehner received for “leadership expenses.”

Congress sets aside a couple hundred thousand dollars a year for the “Official Expenses of Leaders” to pay for the kind of ceremonial activities that leaders are expected to host — $25,000 for the speaker of the House, $40,000 for the Senate majority leader, and so forth. These accounts are above and beyond the budgets each leader is given for salaries and expenses in their leadership offices.

These things generally show up listed in House expenditure records as specific expenses, such as the $7,000 House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., spent on catering March 18, for a bipartisan event honoring of the women justices of the Supreme Court.

In the Senate leadership offices, the expenses are reported as “supplies and materials.” The most recent Senate spending reports showed Majority Leader Mitch McConnell spent a little over $16,000 from this account from September 2014 through March 2015; Minority Leader Harry Reid spent just over $18,000.

But departed House speaker John Boehner simply received a $2,083.33 payment for expenses each month — no itemization required. He was the last leader in Congress to receive this check – Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland stopped receiving a monthly payout in February 2011, after Roll Call wrote a story about the expense accounts.

With the end of the congressional expense check, Ryan gets credit for a change in “how the House does business.”

http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/11/04/paul-ryan-gives-up-congress-last-monthly-expense-check/

Ryan +1
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Thu 5 Nov, 2015 08:17 am
@hawkeye10,
Who is abusing the language? The one that is using the correct terms or the one that is using whatever terms they want to even if they don't actually mean what they intend to say?

Your getting pissy because you don't like it when it is pointed out you don't use the correct terms doesn't make me a prick. It makes you unwilling to learn.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/14/2021 at 02:17:44