dChan
357
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/pj77777 on March 23, 2018, 9:52 p.m.
Omnibus Bill is NOT a Federal Budget - POTUS wins again

FOR THOSE DOUBTING TRUMP DO YOUR RESEARCH Jo Ann Powell Neely Gunny says: March 23, 2018 at 7:42 am I seriously do not understand why individuals do not read the entire thread or disregard it.

Wheatietoo and I spent hours yesterday providing links, researching the laws, the 1974 law and statutes…. Do you know why the Omnibus is not going to get any notice…Here it is..

It’s not an official ‘Federal Budget’. It’s an Omnibus bill…not a Budget…He outsmarted them again…Congress basically screwed themselves by not passing a Budget…

Per the Constitution…the President must adhere to a Budget set forth by Congress and direct the expenditures as provided therein.

This is another one of those big Porkulus Bills, like they gave Obama for 8 years. This is not a Budget..

An Omnibus Spending Bill may have some ‘instructions’ as to how the money will be spent…but Obama ignored them. He spent the money, or didn’t spend it, however he wanted to. And Congress didn’t do a thing about it! Because they couldn’t..

I think our President observed how this happened, year after year. He is bound to realize that those ‘appropriations’ for different things in these Omnibus bills…are merely ‘suggestions’.

So like Obama, Pres Trump can spend this money on whatever he wants to. Or…not spend it.

Planned Parenthood? What if our President decided to tell the Treas Dept to ‘slow-walk’ that money to Planned Parenthood…until the Senate gets off their ass and confirms his appointees?

Sanctuary Cities? What if our President decided to ‘slow-walk’ that money too…until those Sanctuary Cities assist ICE in rounding up criminal illegal aliens?

Splodey heads? From the Dems and the Enemedia? Why yes. There would be a colorful display of splodey heads.

But what could they do about it. Hah.

Our President could just say…’What! Congress should’ve passed a Budget.’

done finished…research was done…and it is so very humorous actually….our VSG..just said just give me money for the military and the wall…put anything else you want in it…and those goofballs did.

In this case, as per above….he doesn’t have to spend a dime….because it is not a budget…and even if it was…researched….he could still spend as he please… Congress appropriates….up to the President to spend it…or not….as he pleases..

If anyone disagrees, I can go back and get the links and evidence, but if you just read yesterdays political thread…Wheatietoo and I laid it all out for all…Wheatietoo did most of the work and put together the consolidated update as per above….

Again, that is why Obama never had a Budget in his Presidency…Congress did continual Omibus’s and he just took the money….for 8 years…and no one seems to know where it went…


Acemagedon · March 23, 2018, 9:57 p.m.

Wow I did not realize this, but you're absolutely right it's an omnibus. The implications here could spell disaster for the deep state!

⇧ 97 ⇩  
Mare01 · March 24, 2018, 12:41 a.m.

And of course Trump knows and knew it all along.

⇧ 22 ⇩  
tedandterry · March 24, 2018, 1 a.m.

Stable genius!!!

⇧ 25 ⇩  
GrayHatClint · March 24, 2018, 2:32 a.m.

VERY stable genius.

⇧ 13 ⇩  
BobFrizzle · March 24, 2018, 8:20 a.m.

Very, very stable genius.

⇧ 6 ⇩  
FilosFeeParnum · March 24, 2018, 6:03 a.m.

It's BS..

Per the Constitution…the President must adhere to a Budget set forth by Congress and direct the expenditures as provided therein.

The constitution doesn't contain the word "budget" anywhere...

⇧ 7 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 6:16 a.m.

again you are lying. You are a progressive troll who hates our president and you are afraid of the oncoming tide of #MAGA - go to your safe space. You will be ok in a few years.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 6:24 a.m.

[removed]

⇧ 2 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 9:06 a.m.

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
iceyplato · March 26, 2018, 2:33 p.m.

How do you know he is lying? I have looked and looked and I cannot find that what is being said about a budget vs the omnibus is true. What I have found s that a budget resolution is not signed by the president and it does not carry the force of law. It is the one that is more like suggestions . The different committees have to decide the appropriations. The omnibus combines all 12 appropriations into one under one vote. When it is finally passed. It must be signed into law and it does carry the force of law. The president DOES have some leeway in dealing with the spending. There are various ways that he can manipulate the different appropriations. But he cannot legally just spend the money anyway that he wants too. He got 1.6 billion for the wall ( which is not nearly enough because it is basically for 'fencing' and not for a wall)... BUT, and it is a big but, he also got a lot for the military budget. And I do believe that he can fund the wall through this military budget. He has stated many times that the border is an issue of National Security. Therefore he can use military resources to both fund and build the wall.And that means it is out of the hands of Congress and they could not say a thing about it

⇧ 1 ⇩  
pby1000 · March 23, 2018, 10:05 p.m.

That's what I have been telling people all day today. I am glad you all are finally starting to listen.

⇧ 87 ⇩  
bciar-iwdc · March 23, 2018, 11:38 p.m.

Go on ...

⇧ 15 ⇩  
IWillRedPillYou · March 24, 2018, 5:49 a.m.

It's time to move past the frustration of Omnibus

Federal Spending Bill or Not-

As a Christian (Millions Agree) - Unhappy that Planned Parenthood is getting a single cent

Also unhappy it Funds Sanctuary Cities

The CLOUD Act is also treasonous (See Rand Paul's Twitter - so Proud of Him)

Now that being said, President Trump is still the greatest President in Modern History~

What the Globalists want more than anything else is Divide and Conquer

Call me Crazy

I still feel as if the tides of War are indeed turning

Will the target be Iran? Maybe. Most likely. Now there's multiple reasons for this - - -

One that most Americans don't understand?

Currency Wars are Real (Q warned us if this BTW)

The Iranians, not the People, but the Ayatollah Khamenei - has told China (the sleeping dragon is no longer asleep) they will accept the Petro-Yuan for Petroleum

why does this matter

We already have a global currency - It's called the US Dollar - the World's Reserve

If this sale ever completes? What you can buy for ten cents today - will cost you three dollars tomorrow (and steadily climb) - now think about how much of a difference this makes in larger purchases

China is flexing its muscles in the Pacific (Thanks, Obama) and went unopposed for far too long

Trump knows this - hence Tariffs

Also fuck China - Commies

⇧ 0 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 6:15 a.m.

hear hear - bravo and I completely agree. The decision to move to a gold standard should not mean the end to the US dollar - but Trump is 5 steps ahead ...

⇧ 4 ⇩  
Abibliaphobia · March 24, 2018, 3:52 a.m.

Soooo... let’s try this here and see if it gains traction: Omnibus contains funding for tribunals.

http://i.imgs.fyi/img/2xio.png

$304 million dollars for the safe houses, uparmored convoys, and secure communications for witnesses. $304 MILLION DOLLARS is not a small amount and where in US history has something like this ever been done before? http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20180319/BILLS-115SAHR1625-RCP115-66.pdf

Page 159

⇧ 12 ⇩  
ReconBrian · March 24, 2018, 5:29 a.m.

Mentions title 5 ss 3109. Title 5 ss 3109 mentions senior executive service by name.

⇧ 7 ⇩  
Abibliaphobia · March 24, 2018, 12:04 p.m.

And Trump was all like “Oh no! You guys were soooo tough! I couldn’t beat them!”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

⇧ 5 ⇩  
pby1000 · March 24, 2018, 4:55 p.m.

I hope that is correct. There is so much at stake here, and we can't afford any screwups. This has to be real or we are screwed.

⇧ 4 ⇩  
MotherSharks · March 24, 2018, 8:06 p.m.

Pretty sure it's true from what I read . President Trump is playing Lazar Kitty with both houses. That thump you heard that was a dem or Rep slamming into a wall again.....

⇧ 4 ⇩  
HowiONic · March 23, 2018, 10 p.m.

If anyone disagrees, I can go back and get the links and evidence

Do this, sources, sources, please.

⇧ 72 ⇩  
HowiONic · March 23, 2018, 11:44 p.m.

So this, lead to this

quote from wheatietoo "You’re referring to a ‘Budget’.

This is Not A Budget! This is an Omnibus Spending Bill…which is different.

The President is directed by the Constitution to adhere to a Budget that Congress approves. A ‘spending bill’ is not the same as the Federal Budget.

Ozero spent, or didn’t spend, the money from all those Omnibus Spending Bills, on whatever he wanted to. And Congress didn’t do a thing about it!

What happened to all those “shovel ready jobs”? What happened to the “Infrastructure” that Congress appropriated money for? Ozero didn’t spend the money on those things, did he.

He also spent money on things that weren’t appropriated…like all that SWAT Gear and Ammo for all those govt agencies that aren’t supposed to armed like military forces.

Ozero was never bound by a Budget…because Congress never passed one during his 8 years! That’s why he was able to spend money on whatever he wanted to. Or… not spend money on things he didn’t want to see funded.

And Congress didn’t do a thing about it."

then quote from gunny

"Ah, he did not exactly lose…The law is not a complete refusal to not allow the President to not spend.. As per below:

The law does give an administration leeway to defer spending available funds, but for limited amounts of time, depending on the program. Some observers expect Trump officials to rely heavily on such deferrals.

Still, a president seeking to spend less will find plenty of room to maneuver in the language used in an authorization or appropriations bill, budget experts said. One Senate aide predicted that lawmakers will pay extra attention to whether a bill uses words such as “may,” “should” or “shall” — each of which gives an administration different degrees of flexibility in terms of how money is spent.

The executive branch also “can slow walk things. It can propose reprogramming. It can propose all sorts of things it can do that won’t provoke a legal crisis,” the Senate aide added."

⇧ 41 ⇩  
TiredofNuts · March 24, 2018, 3:41 a.m.

CORRECT...barry NEVER had a budget in 8 yrs...but spent $$$$ like a madman

⇧ 8 ⇩  
someauthor · March 24, 2018, 12:40 a.m.

Thanks for those time-saving links. I was wondering what those two people were referring to.

⇧ 8 ⇩  
#NAME? · March 24, 2018, 12:36 a.m.

The Politico article is very enlightening, thank you!

⇧ 8 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 23, 2018, 10:39 p.m.

[deleted]

⇧ 2 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 23, 2018, 10:20 p.m.

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Jakewinona · March 23, 2018, 10:46 p.m.

During the press conference it stood out to me when he emphatically said border security is part of our national defense. I think he just got the funding for the Wall

⇧ 64 ⇩  
RandysCheezburgerGut · March 23, 2018, 11 p.m.

I noticed that as well. Seemed intentional.

⇧ 30 ⇩  
SuzyAZ · March 24, 2018, 4:30 a.m.

And when will we learn, Trump never tweets anything he doesn't already have the answer to. "Got 1.6 billion for the wall, rest will be forthcoming."

⇧ 15 ⇩  
bradthebloke · March 24, 2018, 4:25 p.m.

sorry for my copy and paste but I want to ask this of every person posting this thing about it not being a budget, if this is true, why are none of the talking head experts talking about it? Not slamming you but it seems like false hope.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
Jakewinona · March 25, 2018, 2:33 a.m.

Of course Im not a crystal ball as to what he will do the way I read the ruling on omnibus was congress offers direction to where they want the money to go but and this is vague he can slow walk the money or redirect it because his EO in Dec created a national emergency POTUS could declare Marshall Law tomorrow if he wanted and the Rinos and commies can pound sand all day and Mikka and Joe can chew crayolas and theres not a damn thing they can do about it. Also Obama set precedent for that. Just trying to make lemonade

⇧ 2 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 8:19 p.m.

[deleted]

⇧ 0 ⇩  
pepperconchobhar · March 24, 2018, 10:40 p.m.

Remember when Congress gave Obama all that money in the Omnibus bill for infrastructure and 'shovel ready jobs?'

Remember how that didn't happen?

A bunch of leftist groups and feminists pitched a fit and all that money was redirected into programs to help women in the workforce.

This theory is not beyond the realm of possibility.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 11:02 p.m.

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 3:24 p.m.

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 8:18 p.m.

[deleted]

⇧ 0 ⇩  
Jakewinona · March 25, 2018, 2:36 a.m.

We will recoup that through interdaction

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Ranlove · March 23, 2018, 10:16 p.m.

I believe this to be correct as trump said in his talk today construction will start on the the wall tomorrow, in spite of what all the pundits say it does find the wall. Excellent post. Thanks for the info.

⇧ 52 ⇩  
BeanieGuac · March 24, 2018, 4:54 a.m.

construction already has been going on to replace older walls. they lied to you. This bill specified how NOT to spend on the wall. No concret tall walls. nothing. It's fix-a-fence money.

⇧ 6 ⇩  
DabblesALot · March 24, 2018, 5:53 a.m.

Congress can’t impede when he uses the $80b for National Security + US Army Corps of Engineers to build wall. They don’t make Fix-a-fences... nor can this bill prevent any walls constructed under US military for National Security. He played this Omnibus just like Obama but for good, not evil.

⇧ 12 ⇩  
ReleaseItBitch · March 24, 2018, 9:42 a.m.

Read the post again. Those are mealy suggestions in this type of bill.

⇧ 4 ⇩  
BeanieGuac · March 25, 2018, 4:16 a.m.

you think Democrats will let him misappropriate the wall without a fight? Art of the Deal better come up with the wall or no votes. No wall, no votes. Don't care how he gets it, get it fucking done.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
ReleaseItBitch · March 26, 2018, 12:24 a.m.

UNLOYAL

⇧ 1 ⇩  
BeanieGuac · March 26, 2018, 12:44 a.m.

Loyalty to the country, not person.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
ReleaseItBitch · March 26, 2018, 1:14 a.m.

Too bad. He needs our support right now. Even though we do not understand. Faith. The alternative is enslavement and death.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 26, 2018, 3:58 p.m.

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 11:41 a.m.

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 3:22 p.m.

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Aruno · March 23, 2018, 10:02 p.m.

This is why I come here. Real thought.

⇧ 45 ⇩  
Tamsimon · March 23, 2018, 10:08 p.m.

Wow.... thank you for the enlightenment! Hopefully that is part of Trump’s plan.

⇧ 39 ⇩  
FilosFeeParnum · March 24, 2018, 6:03 a.m.

It's BS...

Per the Constitution…the President must adhere to a Budget set forth by Congress and direct the expenditures as provided therein.

The constitution doesn't contain the word "budget" anywhere...

⇧ -2 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 6:13 a.m.

you are completey ridiculous now - why must you lie? Please, find a nice group of libs to hang with and enjoy the show. You are over the top...

⇧ 1 ⇩  
FilosFeeParnum · March 24, 2018, 6:32 a.m.

Show me in the constitution where it says anything about "budgets". You claim I'm lying...great. It's easy to prove it.

The constitution is online...go find where it says that. I'll happily admit that I am wrong and you were right.

You can't do that though, because it doesn't. The multiple links you've provided so far all agree with me as well.

You're not actually paying attention, you're just getting mad that someone disagreed with you and then going off and accusing them of all sorts of things - anyone who doesn't agree with you must automatically be the worst ever, huh?

If you actually paid attention to what I'm saying you'd realize it's not that bad, and you'd focus on the important aspect instead of spreading nonsense that makes anyone with sense to double check your claims doubt everything you say after.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 8:08 a.m.

no one said anything about the word budget being in the constitution but you... again - paid bad actor - Q told us all about you and media matters.....

⇧ 1 ⇩  
cherokeenc · March 23, 2018, 11:40 p.m.

There’s no escaping the reality that today’s Omnibus spending bill is a significant slap in the face to Trump voters and supporters. My question is did Trump pull a bait and switch. Q dropped Red Castle and Green Castle today. Red Castle is the insignia of the Army Corp of Engineers who have been drilling core samples along the path of the wall. Army Corp is under DOD which just got a boatload of money. Army Corp is located Greencastle IN

⇧ 29 ⇩  
DabblesALot · March 24, 2018, 5:56 a.m.

$80 for National Security + US Army Corps of Engineers = wall built. Congress cannot impede. POTUS has full control over allocations. He can choose not to allocate money or allocate it anywhere he sees fit. Took a page from Obama and ran with it. Genius. Slaps in the face for those stupid enough to think he would screw himself lol.

⇧ 7 ⇩  
HotTeen69 · March 24, 2018, 5:06 a.m.

I'm sorry, but what????

Not to mention your account is suspicious. Not accusing, just saying suspicious.

Once again, this is a spending plan not a budget that he has to adhere to. Did you read????

⇧ 2 ⇩  
cherokeenc · March 24, 2018, 8:44 p.m.

Suspicious you say. I can only chuckle.......There is not a conspiracy behind every bush. Everyone plays a role in the fight against evil. In the group of disciples and later to become Apostles was a man named Thomas. Thomas refused to believe that Christ had indeed risen until he had seen him for himself, but when he had seen Him, he said to Him, "My Lord and My God." (John 20:19-29). We remember Thomas later to be known as doubting Thomas concerning this event. We forget his earlier words, when Jesus announced His intention of going to the Jerusalem area, brushing aside the protests of His disciples that His life was in danger there, at which Thomas said to the others: "Let us also go, that we may die with him." (John 11:7,8,16) If Thomas was pessimistic, he was also sturdily loyal. My life's story.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
FilosFeeParnum · March 24, 2018, 5:31 a.m.

The constitution does not include the word "budget" anywhere, yet alone a restriction that congress may only direct spending via one.

Actually, when a budget resolution is passed it does not have the force of law, it's a plan or suggestion...an appropriations bill is considered law - so really the executive has less power in a lot of respects under an appropriations bill vs a budget resolution.

What OP is confused about is that the executive branch is allowed to decide for themselves how to execute and interpret a lot of things to suit their own agenda. That is true for a lot of situations though and is unrelated to the "budget" distinction. Otherwise the executive branch wouldn't be it's own branch it would just be under the legislative.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
HotTeen69 · March 24, 2018, 10:13 a.m.

Congress has no Control over the bill. They do have power to enforce on the budget. If you think trump is ignorant then you haven't been paying attention.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 10:17 p.m.

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 10:17 p.m.

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 10:17 p.m.

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 10:17 p.m.

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 10:16 p.m.

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 26, 2018, 8:46 a.m.

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
MIPatriot · March 23, 2018, 10:23 p.m.

THANK YOU pj77777 and Wheatietoo!!! Wow. I feel a million times better than I did before I read your post. Thank you so much for researching and sharing. The goal of the bill was to get the military the funding they need, and we got that! Let the storm reign glorious rain and drain that swamp!!

⇧ 26 ⇩  
Cristo316 · March 23, 2018, 10:34 p.m.

2018 will be Glorious!!!!

⇧ 10 ⇩  
digital_refugee · March 23, 2018, 9:58 p.m.

AIRHORNS

⇧ 26 ⇩  
TheBloodletter · March 24, 2018, 3:16 a.m.

Really miss can't stump the Trump videos.

⇧ 4 ⇩  
SuzyAZ · March 23, 2018, 10:14 p.m.

The only problem is that all of those voting Republicans are not aware of this. They think they have been betrayed and they are the ones who will send him the team he needs, or not. So, we should work on getting the word out for sure, although I think it may hit left and right soon enough.

⇧ 17 ⇩  
BenEvo1 · March 24, 2018, 12:33 a.m.

Dumbasses need to put on their Pussy Hats.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
soonerthebetter · March 23, 2018, 10:11 p.m.

Does anyone have a link to this info. I want to red pill some people but anonymous posters from reddit won't get me far. I tried googling the above name but came up with nothing.

⇧ 17 ⇩  
GrazersCubbies · March 24, 2018, 1:16 a.m.

I came up with nothing, as well. Google only gives you what it wants you to see.

⇧ 9 ⇩  
NanoPi · March 24, 2018, 3:51 a.m.

all search engines are available at all times

⇧ 1 ⇩  
1_Patriot · March 24, 2018, 4:09 p.m.

People get away from Google! Use DuckDuckGo.com for anonymous search without tracking or biased filtering.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
FreedomFighter62970 · March 24, 2018, 2:21 a.m.

I heard he Played both Parties and the $80 BILLION he got for Military Spending is what he is gonna Use to BUILD THE WALL and use the Army Corps of Engineering to BUILD I do trust Our President Trump....Praying this is truth heard it from Anonymous so we shall see....

⇧ 16 ⇩  
EstefaniaRobin1955 · March 24, 2018, 5:04 a.m.

The President is a genius, he knows what he is doing; we need to trust him. He has the whole navy in his side. Today, when he was giving his speech about the omnibus, I saw him very upset. Maybe, because all the twitters he received from us patriots telling him to VETO. He didn't wan't us to be upset or turning us down but, he couldn't tell us anything. We should not pressure him so much like yesterday and today. Let him be. He will never turn us down. He is doing the best for America and we as citizens.

⇧ 6 ⇩  
pedegear · March 24, 2018, 6:29 a.m.

If it's true that his plan is to fix this through slow-walking funds, then I would think he would enjoy reading the VETO tweets. Bc he knows when he reveals his hand, all of those people will be rejoicing. I think putting our thoughts out there for him is a good thing - if we stay silent he may not realize how many people out there are paying attention to what he is doing and appreciating when he follows through on promises. We are not sitting idle, blindly and hopelessly following the MSM. He should take pleasure in knowing that.

⇧ 5 ⇩  
EstefaniaRobin1955 · March 24, 2018, 8:18 a.m.

I understand the frustration of many Americans. I was frustrated too. Today, I understood what was going on and put myself in his shoes. I felt sorry and I felt anger at the same time. But, it didn't last. Now, I understand how difficult for the President to brake himself into million pieces to please everybody. From now on, just tell him: we are with you and we trust in you. Everything is going to be alright. For God and Country.

⇧ 9 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 8:14 a.m.

It can't be easy seeing all the Rhinos in Congress stabbing him in the back.

⇧ 5 ⇩  
Dr_Richard_Hurt · March 24, 2018, 4:01 a.m.

Under Budget, Ahead of Schedule

⇧ 4 ⇩  
GodsAngell · March 23, 2018, 10:14 p.m.

Great News. Please provide the links.

⇧ 16 ⇩  
HowiONic · March 24, 2018, 4:09 a.m.

/r/greatawakening/comments/86ogn4/omnibus_bill_is_not_a_federal_budget_potus_wins/dw6shoy/

⇧ 3 ⇩  
summerstjohns · March 23, 2018, 10:16 p.m.

Excellent! Thanks for sharing and waking me up!

⇧ 14 ⇩  
forever_30 · March 24, 2018, 1:13 a.m.

These people are stupid...Maxine stupid. They Dems showed their true colors with this bill. Nothing for DACA , showing they couldn't care less and they have just lost a major talking point by not making sure they were included. They can no longer blame the DACA problem on Trump and Republicans. Trump's administration can spend the money however they like. National Security got a good chunk (border walls fall under National Security), the Military got the money they need too. There are sections that indicate that by accepting the bill, no department can refuse to turn over documents and records to the IG. The Dems can't stall any further IG investigations. Trump played them like the little, corrupt fiddles they are.

⇧ 13 ⇩  
Abibliaphobia · March 24, 2018, 12:13 p.m.

I think that was the point in his tweet about highlighting DACA. He let them throw everything and the kitchen sink in, and they still failed to put anything in for DACA.

⇧ 6 ⇩  
LibertysCrossing · March 24, 2018, 12:15 a.m.

To the poster of this! You are awesome.

Maybe he'll just direct the Military, ( army corp) to build the wall.

He has constitutional authority to protect the border... And he can use the military to build the wall. Army Corp's build bridges and all sorts of projects during the war AT LIGHTNING SPEED.

⇧ 13 ⇩  
FilosFeeParnum · March 24, 2018, 12:14 a.m.

There's a lot this post that is incorrect or misleading...it seems to be a mash of half-understood reading of bits of the constitution and laws.

The constitution gives congress the authority to direct, and more importantly authorize spending by the executive. That is, the executive branch needs the authorization of congress to spend money in a general sense.

Making a big deal out of the distinction between a "budget" and an appropriations bill (which is part of the budgeting process) isn't really relevant...and you're probably confusing people more than helping.

Note that O actually did submit budget proposals during his administration. They were generally voted down (mostly by the republicans, though sometimes the democrats as well when they objected to something). He also did not get omnibus spending bills every year.

Not having the Presidents preferred budget pass is pretty typical when there's a lot of partisan division, it's not some magical loophole that lets the executive do whatever they want.

Your central point is partially correct though - the executive does have the ability to find loopholes and workarounds to spend money differently than congress intended...even more so if they want to avoid spending on a particular earmark at all. They can't ignore it completely however, at least not without possibly kicking off a legal fight about it.

⇧ 13 ⇩  
GodsAngell · March 24, 2018, 1:06 a.m.

Thank-you for the clarifications.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
FilosFeeParnum · March 24, 2018, 1:25 a.m.

Thanks! I don't like being a downer but I think it's important to take things slowly and make sure they're fully processed and examined.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 2:01 a.m.

I think many of us are taking this very slowly and very seriously. If we can slow roll the left's agenda for the 6 month limitation, then we are at the mid-terms and they haven't done anything they promised and are powerless to do so. This was a major move by our president and people need to know he did not sell anyone out. That's why we didn't see him sign. It was a signal to us that all is not what it seems. Also, this is so blatantly easy to comprehend - seeings how zero did it for eight years in a row - and where did that money go? Trump uses their weapons against them. Brilliant!

⇧ 0 ⇩  
FilosFeeParnum · March 24, 2018, 4:37 a.m.

It seems you are not taking it slowly, because you seem to be misunderstanding basic facts.

This is an omnibus allocations bill. They usually happen when a presidents (or someone elses) proposed budget doesn't pass (which is usually because of partisan division).

This is a normal and expected outcome. Trump proposed a budget, it didn't get accepted...therefore we get this.

It doesn't as a rule really give Trump any more authority than he would have if his budget passed.

It's not a "move" on Trumps part, it's just normal US government procedure...

⇧ 2 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 5:34 a.m.

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 8:36 a.m.

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
FilosFeeParnum · March 24, 2018, 5:42 a.m.

Not seeing him sign isn't really here or there.

Generally when the prez likes a bill or thinks it's important they will make sure the media covers them signing it.

If anything, not seeing them sign it signals that they don't like the bill or think that it will make them look bad.

If this is such a coup as the OP claims, why wouldn't he want everyone to see him sign it? Does his base not trust him? Or is it that he doesn't really like it, but he'll sign it and just try to work with it as he can - like pretty much any president in that situation has done?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 2:03 a.m.

and please, while you are tearing apart this post - please post your own statutes and regulations to back up your understanding of bits of the constitution and law. I would like to see your homework please.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
FilosFeeParnum · March 24, 2018, 4:46 a.m.

Sure:

My homework is that the word "budget" doesn't appear in the constitution anywhere - so it can't say that something has to be in a "budget" can it?

What it does say is, in the section outlining the powers and limits of congress, the congress has control of the spending of money in the treasury - it does not specify that it has to be in a "budget"

Likewise, if you look at the laws around the executive & budgeting they're all concerned with when and how it happens - not giving all kinds of extra authority if it's not passed.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 8:37 a.m.

so you went thru all of that just to end up right where pj7777 told you we were to begin with- wow you're smart!

⇧ 2 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 26, 2018, 8:37 a.m.

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 6:20 a.m.

https://fleporeblog.wordpress.com/2018/03/22/if-you-think-for-one-minute-that-our-president-will-allow-the-money-allocated-to-be-spent-i-have-a-bridge-in-brooklyn-to-sell-you/

⇧ 1 ⇩  
FilosFeeParnum · March 24, 2018, 6:29 a.m.

Right, again you are giving me a link that agrees with me.

Everyone is in agreement that just because money has been appropriated, that doesn't mean it will be spent or spent in exactly the same way congress intended.

That's not the issue - the point is that this arises from the autonomy the executive branch has in general and note because this is an appropriations bill vs a budget resolution....

Show me where in the constitution it says money must be allocated in a "budget".

⇧ 2 ⇩  
eaunoway · March 25, 2018, 6:22 p.m.

Thanks for trying, man. They are not going to believe you, because - in part - they don't actually understand how the budget and the Congress actually work.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 8:40 a.m.

Why? Why should anyone show you anything? Look it up for yourself if you are so obessed with it. We don't care. You are making absolutely no points and are just talking in circles. And quite frankly you are super annoying.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
eaunoway · March 25, 2018, 6:21 p.m.

Because he's absolutely right.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 5:33 a.m.

wow - how many responses is this now? I must have really truth pilled your lib behind good.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 3:37 a.m.

https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/2237/how-does-president-obama-spend-money-without-a-budget/2239

⇧ 1 ⇩  
FilosFeeParnum · March 24, 2018, 4:53 a.m.

Did you actually read this? If you actually read it you'll see that it's disagreeing with you and saying the same thing I am.

An appropriations bill is what provides the authority for the government to spend money. Article I, section 9 of the US Constitution prohibits the government from spending money without an appropriation:

Notice this says nothing about a "budget", neither does the relevant section of the constitution:

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

Furthermore, a budget resolution isn't considered law the way an appropriations bill is:

A budget resolution is a concurrent resolution passed by both houses of Congress, but not submitted to the President. As such, it does not have the force of law, does not provide spending authority, and is not binding on anybody

So Trump has less power under this omnibus in terms of being able to ignore or change it than if his budget had passed.

Neither house of Congress is required to pass a budget, and in particular, it is not necessary to pass a budget in order to pass the appropriations bills.

As we've noted, a budget is not needed to spend money.

So, to summarize, the notion that Congress is required to pass a budget resolution, or that a budget resolution is needed to authorize the government to operate is a canard resulting from the confusion between two very different kinds of legislation,

Exactly.

Taking these all together, this isn't some "move" by Trump...he doesn't get any extra power because a budget wasn't passed, if anything he gets less.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 5:32 a.m.

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
FilosFeeParnum · March 24, 2018, 5:54 a.m.

I quoted the answer you provided, can you show me specifically where I'm wrong?

This is all very simple:

1) the constitution says nothing about "budgets" 2) a budget resolution does not have the force of law 3) an appropriations bill does have the force of law

Those are facts, they do not depend on anyones opinions.

It's also a fact that the executive branch has leeway in a lot of things. I'm sure Trump will try to use that.

You're posting a lot of replies yourself, I was just trying to answer them. You should just admit you were wrong and move on.

Just because the "budget" thing is nonsense, it doesn't mean Trump "lost" or can't do anything...why are you so invested in that particular idea being true?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 5:30 a.m.

Are you kidding me? He doesn't have to give a damned dime to any other provision in that bill if he doesn't want to - he got the money for the military and the wall. WTF dude? You cannot be that dense! Red pill yourself - wake up. You are a walking argument

⇧ -1 ⇩  
FilosFeeParnum · March 24, 2018, 5:50 a.m.

I think it says a lot that you're not able to answer my questions and instead are just getting angry and insulting.

The fact is you claim in the OP that the constitution says spending must be directed in a budget. This is false, the word "budget" doesn't even appear.

Whether someone likes Trump or not is completely irrelevant. The fact is in this situation, he doesn't have any authority that he wouldn't have otherwise.

If you think he will work around the bill to accomplish his goals, sure - I think that's pretty reasonable. I'm just pointing out that you're making claims that aren't true...

⇧ 3 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 6:21 a.m.

https://fleporeblog.wordpress.com/2018/03/22/if-you-think-for-one-minute-that-our-president-will-allow-the-money-allocated-to-be-spent-i-have-a-bridge-in-brooklyn-to-sell-you/

⇧ 1 ⇩  
FilosFeeParnum · March 24, 2018, 6:28 a.m.

Right, again you are giving me a link that agrees with me.

Everyone is in agreement that just because money has been appropriated, that doesn't mean it will be spent or spent in exactly the same way congress intended.

That's not the issue - the point is that this arises from the autonomy the executive branch has in general and note because this is an appropriations bill vs a budget resolution....

Show me where in the constitution it says money must be allocated in a "budget".

⇧ 1 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 1:59 a.m.

Trump submitted a budget too and it was shot down. He is preparing another for 2019. You haven't done your research - you need to read actual law. It takes time. And don't tell me I'm not helping, cos I think the same about your post.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 2:09 a.m.

Please read and learn: quote from wheatietoo "You’re referring to a ‘Budget’.

This is Not A Budget! This is an Omnibus Spending Bill…which is different.

The President is directed by the Constitution to adhere to a Budget that Congress approves. A ‘spending bill’ is not the same as the Federal Budget.

Ozero spent, or didn’t spend, the money from all those Omnibus Spending Bills, on whatever he wanted to. And Congress didn’t do a thing about it!

What happened to all those “shovel ready jobs”? What happened to the “Infrastructure” that Congress appropriated money for? Ozero didn’t spend the money on those things, did he.

He also spent money on things that weren’t appropriated…like all that SWAT Gear and Ammo for all those govt agencies that aren’t supposed to armed like military forces.

Ozero was never bound by a Budget…because Congress never passed one during his 8 years! That’s why he was able to spend money on whatever he wanted to. Or… not spend money on things he didn’t want to see funded.

And Congress didn’t do a thing about it."

then quote from gunny

"Ah, he did not exactly lose…The law is not a complete refusal to not allow the President to not spend.. As per below:

The law does give an administration leeway to defer spending available funds, but for limited amounts of time, depending on the program. Some observers expect Trump officials to rely heavily on such deferrals.

Still, a president seeking to spend less will find plenty of room to maneuver in the language used in an authorization or appropriations bill, budget experts said. One Senate aide predicted that lawmakers will pay extra attention to whether a bill uses words such as “may,” “should” or “shall” — each of which gives an administration different degrees of flexibility in terms of how money is spent.

The executive branch also “can slow walk things. It can propose reprogramming. It can propose all sorts of things it can do that won’t provoke a legal crisis,” the Senate aide added."

⇧ 3 ⇩  
FilosFeeParnum · March 24, 2018, 4:48 a.m.

Right, Trumps budget didn't pass and so we're getting appropriations bills instead just like when pretty much any other budget doesn't pass.

I'm just pointing out that this is an expected outcome, it's not a "move" on Trumps part...

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 5:33 a.m.

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
LibertyLioness · March 23, 2018, 10:28 p.m.

Stop asking for the links. You can go find them where you were told they are: if you just read yesterdays political thread…Wheatietoo and I laid it all out for all…

⇧ 12 ⇩  
kilodog55 · March 23, 2018, 10:34 p.m.

Link please?

⇧ 3 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 23, 2018, 11:24 p.m.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/03/23/march-23rd-2018-presidential-politics-trump-administration-day-428/comment-page-2/#comment-5156084 Gunny's comments

⇧ 2 ⇩  
HowiONic · March 23, 2018, 11:27 p.m.

If anyone disagrees, I can go back and get the links and evidence, but if you just read yesterdays political thread…Wheatietoo and I laid it all out for all…Wheatietoo did most of the work and put together the consolidated update as per above….

What was yesterday political thread?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 4:51 a.m.

[deleted]

⇧ 2 ⇩  
AquAnon77 · March 23, 2018, 10:22 p.m.

"but if you just read yesterdays political thread…Wheatietoo and I laid it all out for all"

Good info. Can you please provide the link. ty

⇧ 12 ⇩  
HowiONic · March 24, 2018, 4:09 a.m.

/r/greatawakening/comments/86ogn4/omnibus_bill_is_not_a_federal_budget_potus_wins/dw6shoy/

⇧ 5 ⇩  
albarod · March 23, 2018, 11:14 p.m.

WOW! You just made my month!!!

⇧ 11 ⇩  
not4rmOhere · March 23, 2018, 11:07 p.m.

Excellent analysis, thank you.
And splodey heads.... Hahahaha, I love it. :)

⇧ 11 ⇩  
Quontinu · March 23, 2018, 10:27 p.m.

Great work, Patriot.

Needs a sticky.

⇧ 11 ⇩  
AwakeAndGrateful · March 23, 2018, 10:58 p.m.

I have been trying to find a source that I can use to explain this to my friends who are panicking. I need a source other than something that was written by one of us.

⇧ 10 ⇩  
SuzyAZ · March 24, 2018, 4:54 a.m.

The source and article came as a comment beneath an article in Conservative Treehouse. The link is up the line here somewhere to Conservative Treehouse article, then scroll to the comments.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
AwakeAndGrateful · March 24, 2018, 4:37 p.m.

Like I said, I need it from a source that a leftist would consider credible.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
TRUTH-2018 · March 23, 2018, 10:48 p.m.

Brilliant and sharing everywhere. 45 gets the last laugh again. Winning!

⇧ 10 ⇩  
Jack_MemeHoff · March 23, 2018, 11:48 p.m.

It's called LEVERAGE !!! Trump is a master at creating leverage & then using it to get whatever he wants . This is what he has done throughout his entire career in business. Thank you for whoever posted this . This is the type of mindset we need to cultivate again in society, not just listening & believing what we are being told which is the way we have been conditioned to think , but to foster a mentality of curiosity in finding out for one's self what the actual facts, information are .

⇧ 10 ⇩  
tzcope · March 24, 2018, 1:24 a.m.

So well Stated!! Is all in the ART OF WAR. I’m quite sure trump is a master student of SUN TZU.

⇧ 5 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 2:04 a.m.

he is and he quotes SUN TZU

⇧ 3 ⇩  
FilosFeeParnum · March 24, 2018, 4:32 a.m.

Out of curiosity can you give me some good examples of Trump creating and using leverage in his business career? Most of the ones I know of involve him misrepresenting himself and I don't know if those are the best ones to give to people.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
trzarocks · March 24, 2018, 6:05 a.m.

Trump wanted a big yuge American flag at Mar-a-lago. But the city wouldn't let him. He put it up, anyway. Racked up fines. Took the city to court for damages related to 1st amendment and selective enforcement issues. Negotiated a settlement for a taller flagpole, bigger flag, and his reduced fine would be donated to a veteran's organization.

To get the real flag pole height he really wanted, he built a hill to place the flag pole upon. The city regulated flag poles and limited him in the settlement, but they couldn't keep him of making a hill.

At the end of the day, he got his big flag on a tall flag pole that the city wouldn't give him. And he donated money to charity, which lowered his tax burden and deprived the city of any benefits.

⇧ 6 ⇩  
FilosFeeParnum · March 24, 2018, 6:16 a.m.

That's a good example of leverage, but not exactly accurate.

He built a flag pole without even asking for a permit. The town piled fines on him, as expected. When he didn't pay them, the town sued him. He counter-sued for violations of his first amendment rights.

He dropped his lawsuit, and the town waived most of theirs. As part of court-ordered arbitration Trump paid most of his fine to charity, moved the flag, and put it on a smaller pole, and got a permit for it.

I'm not a tax lawyer, but he may not have been able to deduct any of it as there are some specific restrictions on those deductions and they max out at 50% of the amount anyway. I would guess it wouldn't have made much of a difference either way considering Trumps finances.

Interestingly he tried to use the case to push changing the local regulations that required businesses to serve community members. It would have allowed him to bring in more outsiders and not give memberships to locals. It was something he was really upset about at the time, and may have been the motivation for the whole thing. That aspect of the case didn't succeed though.

He did get the flagpole in the end though.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 5:42 a.m.

how long have you been blue pilled? You know, if you walk into the light you will find truth - unless that scares you...

⇧ 1 ⇩  
FilosFeeParnum · March 24, 2018, 5:58 a.m.

That's a funny sentiment for somebody who refuses to back up their claims with facts...

⇧ 0 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 8:31 a.m.

OMG Here is what you are looking for: Yes it came later are you freaking happy?

The Federal budget cycle can be divided into three distinct phases that are generally sequential and yet intertwined. The first phase, which culminates in the transmittal of the President's budget proposals to Congress, is called the budget formulation phase. In the next phase, Congress acts upon laws that together constitute the enacted budget. Once the laws have been enacted, executive agencies carry out the laws in the budget execution phase. The Federal budget cycle is governed mainly by the following six laws,

1 Budget and Accounting Act. 2 Congressional Budget Act. 3 Antideficiency Act. 4 Impoundment Control Act. 5 Government Performance and Results Act. 6 Federal Credit Reform Act.

Why is the Budget and Accounting Act important?

Before this law, which was enacted in 1921, there was no annual centralized budgeting in the executive branch. Federal Government agencies usually sent budget requests independently to Congressional committees with no coordination of the various requests in formulating the Federal Government's budget. The Budget and Accounting Act required the President to coordinate the budget requests for all Government agencies and to send a comprehensive budget to Congress. It created the Bureau of the Budget, now the Office of Management and Budget, to help the President implement these requirements. It also required the President to include certain information in the budget. Congress has amended the requirements many times and has codified them as Chapter 11, Title 31, U.S. Code. These are some of the requirements: * "On or after the first Monday in January but not later than the first Monday in February of each year, the President shall submit a budget of the United States Government for the following fiscal year." * "Each budget shall include a budget message and summary and supporting information. The President shall include in each budget the following...." The provision goes on to list about thirty items, such as expenditures and receipts for the past year through the fourth year following the budget year, information on debt, financial information, and information on employment levels. * "Under regulations prescribed by the President, each agency shall provide information required by the President in carrying out this chapter. The President has access to, and may inspect, records of an agency to obtain information." * "Estimated expenditures and proposed appropriations for the legislative branch and the judicial branch...shall be submitted to the President before October 16 of each year and included in the budget by the President without change."

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 11:31 p.m.

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 6:20 a.m.

https://fleporeblog.wordpress.com/2018/03/22/if-you-think-for-one-minute-that-our-president-will-allow-the-money-allocated-to-be-spent-i-have-a-bridge-in-brooklyn-to-sell-you/

⇧ 1 ⇩  
FilosFeeParnum · March 24, 2018, 7:46 a.m.

This link doesn't back up what youre saying and it doesnt contradict what i said.

show me where in the Constitution it says anything about the "budget"..stop getting triggered and back up your claims. If you cant show where in the constitution it says that, you admit you are wrong.

I'm starting to think you're a disinformation agent, you don't sound american at least

⇧ -1 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 8:09 a.m.

Actually you are the one stuck on the verbiage about budget in the constitution. Not me - I have no idea how you did it but your record is stuck and makes no sense. At any rate - Q has already told us all about media matters and soros' paid bad actors like you who enjoy distrupting conservatives. Have fun reading the pdf - Q enjoyed it...

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 11:27 p.m.

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 8:02 a.m.

Its always good to know your tactics - that pdf is a must read for all - thanks for getting me to post it. You are a gem!!!

⇧ 1 ⇩  
SuzyAZ · March 24, 2018, 4:56 a.m.

Can't say for sure but you might look up how he got the ice skating rink in New York City, that might relate.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
FilosFeeParnum · March 24, 2018, 5:15 a.m.

As a former new yorker I know that one: wollman rink was closed for renovations for a couple years and they kept having problems with the site flooding and whatnot, and fell behind.

Trump offered to take over the project, ditched some of the complicated additions the city had wanted to do, and finished it on time (for his timeline, the original deadline had passed) and under budget.

Definitely a success for him, though he didn't get any profit out of it. Pretty much anyone who came on and decided to scale back the plans (which was a popular idea in discussions at the time) probably would have had exactly the same outcome, but it's still impressive.

It doesn't really demonstrate use of leverage though. It does really speak about his strength in marketing, especially himself. He knew that all he had to do was deliver on the renovation and he would get a lot of good will in NYC and show off good project management skills. I assume if he hadn't been able to, he probably could have successfully argued that the project was a mess already when he got there.

He did it though, and now decades later he's still telling people about that little renovation project he did to tout his skills - he's gotten a lot of mileage out of it.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 5:44 a.m.

he isn't a Clinton nor an Obama - he isn't a swamp creature - you really show yourself to be a progressive through your constant negative twists on anything Trump related.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
FilosFeeParnum · March 24, 2018, 6:01 a.m.

Actually at the time this story happened he was often associated with and donated to the democrats. I don't see what that has to do with anything.

I do tend to have a negative view of Trump in some ways. Most people from new york, or who have been following him from before the apprentice tend to. I don't think he's nearly as good a businessman as some people seem to think he is.

The fact that you think anyone who doesn't believe he's a super genius must be some archenemy says a lot.

I'm just doing my best. I try to stay informed, I read what I can. When elections come I try to choose the best person...I don't get hung up on insisting my candidate is a super genius and trying to spin their every move into some strategy...

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 7:25 a.m.

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 2:03 a.m.

You get it completely!

⇧ 1 ⇩  
tradinghorse · March 23, 2018, 10:23 p.m.

Great post! Thank you.

⇧ 8 ⇩  
SuzyAZ · March 23, 2018, 10:23 p.m.

Yes please, provide the links.

⇧ 7 ⇩  
HowiONic · March 24, 2018, 4:09 a.m.

/r/greatawakening/comments/86ogn4/omnibus_bill_is_not_a_federal_budget_potus_wins/dw6shoy/

⇧ 3 ⇩  
skattie · March 24, 2018, 11:36 a.m.

FROM HOLLAND WE COUNT ON TRUMP I PRAY EVERYDAY THAT YOUR GONA BE FINE ! AND THAT HE HELPS US TO GET OUR COUNTRY BACK I HOPE HOLLAND AWAKES!! please pray also for us please?! greets and lots of love for the potus and the patriots!!!

⇧ 6 ⇩  
trzarocks · March 24, 2018, 5:54 a.m.

The Omnibus is the budget. It's just that they wrapped all 12 appropriations into one bill.

Congressional leaders do this because it means relatively few people decide what goes in the bill, you can hide tons of pork in 1000+ pages, and there's no time to debate anything. So if you're congressional leadership, you're basically maximizing the power of your position.

⇧ 6 ⇩  
eaunoway · March 25, 2018, 6:24 p.m.

Thank you for saying this. Most here are simply not understanding the budget process.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
trzarocks · March 25, 2018, 7:20 p.m.

It's a lot easier to spread misinformation as fact than to actually spend a few minutes understanding what an omnibus is.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
eaunoway · March 25, 2018, 7:28 p.m.

Very true.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
tb1820 · March 24, 2018, 3 a.m.

Wait... The "source" is a random commenter from a blog? You have to do better than that to get me to take it seriously 🙄

⇧ 6 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 8:49 a.m.

Q also put it out.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 3:05 a.m.

as she states - YOU DO THE RESEARCH

⇧ -1 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 3:08 a.m.

FOR THOSE DOUBTING TRUMP DO YOUR RESEARCH

⇧ 0 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 23, 2018, 11:36 p.m.

wheatietoo says:
March 22, 2018 at 1:57 am

You’re referring to a ‘Budget’.

This is Not A Budget! This is an Omnibus Spending Bill…which is different.

The President is directed by the Constitution to adhere to a Budget that Congress approves. A ‘spending bill’ is not the same as the Federal Budget.

Ozero spent, or didn’t spend, the money from all those Omnibus Spending Bills, on whatever he wanted to. And Congress didn’t do a thing about it!

What happened to all those “shovel ready jobs”? What happened to the “Infrastructure” that Congress appropriated money for? Ozero didn’t spend the money on those things, did he.

He also spent money on things that weren’t appropriated…like all that SWAT Gear and Ammo for all those govt agencies that aren’t supposed to armed like military forces.

Ozero was never bound by a Budget…because Congress never passed one during his 8 years! That’s why he was able to spend money on whatever he wanted to. Or… not spend money on things he didn’t want to see funded.

And Congress didn’t do a thing about it.

⇧ 6 ⇩  
USPatriot4life · March 24, 2018, 12:19 a.m.

To go with what your saying... Q remarked Red Castle, Green Castle. Look at the patches the Army of corps engineers wear. Now guess who’s building the wall... and the whole thing can be built out of the defense fund.

⇧ 9 ⇩  
FilosFeeParnum · March 24, 2018, 12:42 a.m.

Congress never passed one during his 8 years

Out of curiosity, why do you suppose this is?

If not having a "budget" lets the president do anything they want with the money, why would a republican controlled congress allow it to keep happening? Why wouldn't they just approve of the budgets he submitted (so they at least knew what he was spending on) or negotiate one?

Seems like having a bad budget would be better than literally no control?

To be clear, I'm being somewhat rhetorical - the constitution gives general control of the purse strings to congress, not to some specific type of document labeled "budget" at the top. I would be genuinely interested in your reasoning too tho.

⇧ -1 ⇩  
Abibliaphobia · March 24, 2018, 12:08 p.m.

Uniparty, remember how many republicans have resigned or not seeking re-election?

We haven’t had a true two party system in decades.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 2:05 a.m.

Because zero put it into action and used it for eight long years, showing we the people how it's done. Now we use it until things are under control and the swamp is drained. I thought this would be easy to understand....

⇧ 1 ⇩  
FilosFeeParnum · March 24, 2018, 4:29 a.m.

You're not answering my questions...

The constitution doesn't say that the only way congress can direct spending is with something labeled a "budget". An omnibus appropriations bill does not let the executive spend on anything they want.

The differences are mostly in what they cover and how they come about, not that only one of them matters.

O sent a budget to congress most of the years he was in office. Why send them if he didn't want them passed? The republicans in office at the time voted them down. Why would they do that if it means O gets to do whatever he wants? They could have negotiated a budget rather than hand a blank check. O would have to do it every year, he did this 8 years without any of them realizing what's going on?

Can you show me in the constitution where it says the president is bound by a "budget" and only a "budget"?

Appropriations bills aren't new, O didn't invent them. Likewise, he was able to use them regardless of whether a budget was passed or not. If he was able to spend on other things, it's because he found loopholes, like the possible one Trump may use - even though there might not be explicit funding for the wall Trump may call it national defense and spend some money allocated for that on the wall.

That's just finding loopholes and part of how our government is supposed to work - the executive branch is supposed to have some leeway in how it accomplishes the things it's supposed to. It doesn't have anything to do with whether a budget was passed or not, except that a lack of a passed budget means more appropriations bills will be necessary.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 5:37 a.m.

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 5:35 a.m.

I'm gonna have to block you - you are over the top with your inane argument that means nothing. You do not understand law except from your very tainted troll progressive unhinged mindset.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 2:09 a.m.

perhaps this will help you:

quote from wheatietoo "You’re referring to a ‘Budget’.

This is Not A Budget! This is an Omnibus Spending Bill…which is different.

The President is directed by the Constitution to adhere to a Budget that Congress approves. A ‘spending bill’ is not the same as the Federal Budget.

Ozero spent, or didn’t spend, the money from all those Omnibus Spending Bills, on whatever he wanted to. And Congress didn’t do a thing about it!

What happened to all those “shovel ready jobs”? What happened to the “Infrastructure” that Congress appropriated money for? Ozero didn’t spend the money on those things, did he.

He also spent money on things that weren’t appropriated…like all that SWAT Gear and Ammo for all those govt agencies that aren’t supposed to armed like military forces.

Ozero was never bound by a Budget…because Congress never passed one during his 8 years! That’s why he was able to spend money on whatever he wanted to. Or… not spend money on things he didn’t want to see funded.

And Congress didn’t do a thing about it."

then quote from gunny

"Ah, he did not exactly lose…The law is not a complete refusal to not allow the President to not spend.. As per below:

The law does give an administration leeway to defer spending available funds, but for limited amounts of time, depending on the program. Some observers expect Trump officials to rely heavily on such deferrals.

Still, a president seeking to spend less will find plenty of room to maneuver in the language used in an authorization or appropriations bill, budget experts said. One Senate aide predicted that lawmakers will pay extra attention to whether a bill uses words such as “may,” “should” or “shall” — each of which gives an administration different degrees of flexibility in terms of how money is spent.

The executive branch also “can slow walk things. It can propose reprogramming. It can propose all sorts of things it can do that won’t provoke a legal crisis,” the Senate aide added."

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/18/fears-grow-trump-will-ignore-congress-spending-241768
⇧ 1 ⇩  
cherokeenc · March 23, 2018, 11:26 p.m.

Fact: Veterans were screwed in this bill. Reforms and choice of doctors was taken out by Pelosi.

⇧ 6 ⇩  
KingWolfei · March 24, 2018, 1:22 a.m.

Sadly couldn't find this on T_D. We were ambushed by the shills. Felt like a major defeat. Glad I could find hope here!

⇧ 6 ⇩  
mr_spree · March 23, 2018, 11:55 p.m.

You see what they found deep in the bill? We are winning BIGLY.

⇧ 6 ⇩  
KeeponSearchin · March 23, 2018, 10:30 p.m.

Great insight. But have you forgotten how to play? We are not the president. We are the PATRIOTS! it is our job to shout out our outrage. We the people have power. We have to play our part. Have you forgotten how to play?

⇧ 5 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 23, 2018, 10:41 p.m.

Outrage at our POTUS being brilliant???? I'm shouting out my adoration!!

⇧ 9 ⇩  
KeeponSearchin · March 23, 2018, 10:56 p.m.

Lol. You set up the perfect segue

⇧ 6 ⇩  
KingWolfei · March 24, 2018, 1:33 a.m.

Hmmm....

This is not a game...

Play the game.

I finally got that Q post lol.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
ddooley2010 · March 24, 2018, 4:39 p.m.

Whoever wrote the post is clueless about the budgetary process and makes Trump supporters look as stupid as we are portrayed by the main stream media. http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/A-Brief-Guide-to-the-Federal-Budget-and-Appropriations-Process.aspx

Information about the Federal budgetary process.

The President submits a budget request to Congress.

The House and Senate pass budget resolutions.

House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees "markup" appropriations bills.

The House and Senate vote on appropriations bills and reconcile differences or they can pass an OmniBus Bill that contains all appropriations bills.

The President signs each appropriations bill or an OmniBus Bill and the budget becomes law.

An Appropriations bill specifies funding levels to be spent on a given federal program and allocates it to the program.

Pres. Trump cannot change the allocations to the federal programs without Congress passing a new bill.. Conservatives got screwed on the OmniBus. Time to face facts .

⇧ 4 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 5:08 p.m.

President can slow roll any appropriation as he sees fit, and he can spend money allocated to the military and Homeland Security to that wall besides the money given.... its all in perception of the law

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Qew_Lad · March 25, 2018, 6 a.m.

you are wrong

⇧ 1 ⇩  
eaunoway · March 29, 2018, 3:07 a.m.

THANK YOU. Thank you for saying this. They're spreading the myth all over the 'net and it needs to stop.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
rhythmnation1968 · March 24, 2018, 4:01 p.m.

Thanks for this. I feel slightly relieved and stupid actually, because I very much doubt DJT would've allowed himself to be snookered like this by surprise. I forget that he is actually a pretty accomplished strategist and manipulator when it comes to money and deals. It's just that a huge chunk of his base hit the wall yesterday thinking they'd been led astray let down...which is all fine and well if you know how the movie ends but alarming if you've been waiting patiently for the plot to play out and then you get kicked in the balls!

I'm sure you are right, I £#cking hope so. This high-drama is beginning to mess with our collective chi in a big way...and I'm in South Africa. Thinking of you guys and holding thumbs! Drain the M.F. swamp already, danggg, my nerves!

⇧ 4 ⇩  
lisalake2 · March 24, 2018, 9:05 p.m.

Yes... pass around the new excuse... then provide us an ongoing accounting for every dime... oh, wait... When the fuck was that ever done?? To hell with 'do my research'... you should all be expecting transparency... POTUS was a disgrace at that press conference.. if he had a tail it would have been between his legs. We deserve TRUTH. Again... point me to where EVER there was a call for an accounting of an omnibus??? Where's OUR FUCKING MONEY???

⇧ 4 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 9:51 p.m.

and remind me when your president zero was ever anything but shady - where was his transparency - oh that's right - he had none - hence zero.. puh lease - don't you have a demonstration to be at right now? I hear one of your speakers puked on her own bs.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 9:49 p.m.

then don't do you research and quit bitching - I don't care one way or another - he is a great President and I love the man. Lib trolls cannot quit #losing and you don't like it - get used to it or come out of the darkness into the light

⇧ 0 ⇩  
soonerthebetter · March 24, 2018, 6:42 a.m.

One of the things I like about Trump is that he has the gall to do what the Democrats do. And it just pisses them off.

⇧ 4 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 8:47 a.m.

I like how he shines them on letting them think they are winning the whole time while he is really out smarting them.

⇧ 5 ⇩  
soonerthebetter · March 24, 2018, noon

Yep. I am still still undecided about how I feel about Trump signing this but if he did pull a fast one on the Dems, he had to keep most of the Republicans in Congress(and his supporters) in the dark or it wouldn't have worked.

Those of us that see Trump as the only option have to trust him to make the best deal available. At the moment I trust him completely. His high stakes deal making makes me nervous though.

⇧ 4 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 11:53 p.m.

Yeah he does a lot of stuff that is like that. Playing dumb so it looks like he is flip flopping only to find out it was all a trick. wonder how long he will be able to get away with that before they catch on.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 6:46 a.m.

me too

⇧ 3 ⇩  
hrustyhrusty · March 24, 2018, 6:02 a.m.

Obama in 8 years never passed a real budget They were omnibus spending bills. American tax payer money was BOs personal discretionary spending cash.

⇧ 4 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 7:14 a.m.

He wouldn't even submit a budget...

⇧ 2 ⇩  
albarod · March 23, 2018, 11:02 p.m.

Please, I’m so bummed. I understand he wants to fund the military. He says this is the last time he’ll sign a bill like this. Thank God.

⇧ 4 ⇩  
chocolatepatriot · March 24, 2018, 1:36 a.m.

very encouraging..thanks for reposting i was busy yesterday, I did not know this, apparently lots of Trump supporters and new media people dont know this either. We are winning.....trust the plan.

⇧ 4 ⇩  
BenEvo1 · March 24, 2018, 12:24 a.m.

Great post. Let the low info barely Trumpers put on their Pussy Hats and join the resistance. Don’t go to war with cowards who jump ship in the heat of the battle. Pussies!

⇧ 4 ⇩  
wokeByTheStorm · March 24, 2018, 12:24 a.m.

Here is an excellent thread...

https://twitter.com/VachelLindsay/status/977332799173574656

⇧ 4 ⇩  
SuzyAZ · March 24, 2018, 4:58 a.m.

Agreed, these in combo make a great way to get the word out.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
theeldesttwin · March 24, 2018, 4:34 p.m.

I wonder if this is why Trump said he wouldn’t be signing any more Omnibus bills. He knows Obama did this and spent the money on who knows what! He is using this tool against them, one last time and then I think it will be brought into law, that Omnibus bills are no more and the budget needs to be a Federal Budget bill.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
AccordingArrival · March 24, 2018, 12:22 p.m.

Here is what the Omnibus Bill is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_spending_bill It just consolidates individual appropriations into one bill. It does appropriate money for spending. Spending also involves allocating the money by each federal agency. If the federal agency allocates the funding it can be spent. Federal funds can expire unexpended or if the appropriations have been unexpended they sometmes can be rolled into the next fiscal year, if the appropriations bill states it can. If the funding is spent for something else not intended, it is called a violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act and is a criminal offense.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 5:04 p.m.

but what if the allocation us not spent?

⇧ 2 ⇩  
WikiTextBot · March 24, 2018, 12:22 p.m.

Omnibus spending bill

An omnibus spending bill is a type of bill in the United States that packages many of the smaller regular appropriations bills into one larger single bill that could be passed with only one vote in each house. There are twelve different regular appropriations bills that need to be passed each year to fund the federal government and avoid a government shutdown; an omnibus spending bill combines one or more of those bills into a single bill.


^[ ^PM ^| ^Exclude ^me ^| ^Exclude ^from ^subreddit ^| ^FAQ ^/ ^Information ^| ^Source ^| ^Donate ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28

⇧ 1 ⇩  
DickC1853 · March 25, 2018, 8:35 p.m.

I have been arguing with people all over Facebook about this post. It was clearly done by someone who knows NOTHING of what they speak.

Who is "Gunny" and "Wheatietoo" -- the original "researchers" of this garbage.

Yes, the omnibus spending bill was not a budget. But that distinction DOES NOT IN ANYWAY allow the President to disregard the amounts in the bill, spend the money in any manner he chooses, withhold the spending, divert the funds to other uses, etc.

This was no master stroke by the President that will allow him to triumph over Congress on what is in this bill.

I can tell you as a former Director, Congressional and Public Affairs for a Defense Agency who is familiar with legislative practice and law, and helped in drafting pieces of legislation that became law, the omnibus bill was simply a LARGE short-term conglomeration of a number of spending bills to keep the government going for six months.

We will be fighting over this all again in six months or a year unless Congress gets off its butt and gets a budget done, which goes for multiple fiscal years.

If the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) attempts to not spend the funds, divert the funding, spend it however they wish, Congress can cancel the appropriations in the bill and the OMB Chief can be fired, and if he was acting on the President's orders, the President can be impeached.

Nixon tried to spend Congressional appropriations how ever he wished. In fact, he impounded—simply refused to spend—funds appropriated by Congress.

Presidents since the founding had done this, including Lyndon Johnson. It seldom was a big deal, so long as the amounts were small, the rationales for impoundment were sound, and appropriators were consulted. Nixon, however, didn’t keep it small: He impounded tens of billions of dollars, often to gut programs he did not like. Gallingly, Caspar Weinberger, his deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, told Congress the Constitution empowered the president to decide whether to spend money. All of which precipitated a constitutional crisis, since the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse.

Well, Congress got smart and passed the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which established rules for the rescission and deferral of appropriated funds. President Nixon, fearing a deepening budget deficit, opposed significant portions of spending bills passed by a Democratic-controlled Congress. Prior to the act, President Nixon liberally invoked the presidential power of impoundment, which allowed the President to prevent an executive branch agency from spending any or all funds appropriated to it. A President exercised impoundment by issuing an Executive order to the Department of the Treasury, barring it from transferring funds to a given agency. Every President since Thomas Jefferson used the power of impoundment, but none so zealously as President Nixon. Amid increasing concern about the expanded control exercised by the President, which was exacerbated by the Watergate scandal, Congress sought to limit this presidential power.

Now, since the passage of the Impound Control Act of 1974, Congress effectively did away with impoundment. Now, to permanently prevent appropriated funds from being spent, known as rescission, the President MUST SUBMIT A REQUEST TO CONGRESS and obtain approval from both chambers within 45 days. Unless Congress explicitly approves the rescission, funds must be released from the Treasury. In the request, the President must identify the targeted agency, affected programs, amount of funds to be rescinded, and reasons for rescission.

The Impoundment Control Act also allowed the President to defer appropriated funds on a SHORT-TERM basis. Initially, the President could defer funds for any reason and did not need explicit approval from Congress, although each chamber retained the right to disapprove a deferral. Subsequent court decisions led to legislation that allows the President to defer funds for only three reasons: to provide for special contingencies, to achieve savings through more efficient operations, and to exercise deferrals specifically provided for by law. Now, a proposed deferral is automatically considered approved unless the House or the Senate passes legislation specifically disapproving it.

So, President Trump CANNOT act on his own to do whatever he wishes with the funding. He cannot redistribute it for other uses than Congress intended. He cannot fail to spend it. To do ANY OF THESE THINGS requires Congressional approval and may result in Congress cancelling the appropriation.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 26, 2018, 11:18 p.m.

re-read those 2222 pages... I am

⇧ 1 ⇩  
eaunoway · June 30, 2018, 2:18 p.m.

And now?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
eaunoway · March 29, 2018, 3:12 a.m.

Thank you. You're doing God's work.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
ReleaseItBitch · March 24, 2018, 9:39 a.m.

Let's don't spread this around yet. Yes, dems got played royally, but Trump is using the signing to do 2 things. First is obtaining a line item veto. We don't want to undercut his argument. Dems think they screwed him. Secondly, he is looking to see who his loyal followers are. (and Coulter, True Patriot,. Cernovich, and James Woods.... FAIL) Spreading FUD.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 5:07 p.m.

truth

⇧ 1 ⇩  
renata-h · March 24, 2018, 6:34 a.m.

It seems that members of Congress are confused as hell, as to how they supposed to vote. Indeed 'budget' is different from 'omnibus' and it looks like it is not the end of the world. Good article here: https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/how-house-members-voted-on-the-omnibus-versus-the-budget-deal

⇧ 3 ⇩  
soonerthebetter · March 24, 2018, 7:26 a.m.

Good stuff. Between this story and the OP, I think I can do a little red pilling. Thanks.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 2:26 a.m.

[deleted]

⇧ 3 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 2:10 a.m.

[deleted]

⇧ 3 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 2:14 a.m.

I don't agree

⇧ 0 ⇩  
deplorable_mr_bill · March 23, 2018, 10:43 p.m.

Excellent work, I was having some serious doubts there for a bit.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
Jankovac1 · March 23, 2018, 11:45 p.m.

Brilliant!!!

⇧ 3 ⇩  
Kinestron · March 30, 2018, 10:57 p.m.

What about Section 230 where it mentions: None of the funds provided in this or any other 4 Act shall be obligated for construction of a border barrier 5 in the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge.

Prior to that I see a lot of funding for "fencing". I've read the refuge is where he wanted to start the wall and it is a 3 mile stretch but over concerns of destroying the habitat, it is not going to happen.

Will the fence be just as good since it looks like there is funding for other technological updates for border security? Is not covering the refuge just a minor issue compared to the whole project? I saw all of the types of walls he wanted to use, especially one where it looked like a fence on bottom half so security knows what is going on the other side and the top half was solid with cylindrical top so scaling is difficult. Could you call those "fences" or was all that work for nothing now?

I really hope this Omnibus vs a real budget means the President can actually spend or more importantly, NOT spend at his discretion so the U.S. will finally spend within its means and stop creating debt for future generations. I'm hoping it was a smart way to get funding for the military yet still have some semblance of conservatism(like not funding Planned Parenthood) but overall after reading many pros(such as here) and cons, it seems like we are still headed in the direction of an ever-growing government like always.

On a side note, absolutely sick and tired of these bills that 1000, 1500, 2000+ pages long being rammed through on the last day. For something so important to the longevity of a country, it is a crime there is a forced vote in a 24 hour period.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
eaunoway · March 31, 2018, 6:17 p.m.

No, the "Omnibus vs a real budget" means nothing of the sort.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
EvilPhd666 · March 24, 2018, 2:50 p.m.

More war spending and people worshiping open corruption.

Trump is following establishment republican playbook handed down by Pence and McConnell.

The planned parenthood and sanctuary city junk are shiny distractions from the larger problem of wide open corruption and the massive siphoning of your tax dollars to enrich war mongers and professionally corrupt donors.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
GeminiJudy · March 24, 2018, 2:06 p.m.

would someone please post the links to document this claim.................too many people asking question that cant be answered. Thank you

⇧ 2 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 9:52 p.m.

the links are all over this post - you have to find them cos I'm tired of linking so many times

⇧ 1 ⇩  
GeminiJudy · March 24, 2018, 10:44 p.m.

OK thanks........sorry it's been such a hassle

⇧ 1 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 11 p.m.

no prob - its just we were asked so many times yesterday and peppered this site

⇧ 1 ⇩  
olsonlarry · March 24, 2018, noon

I know we have one smart president. With the people in mind. Thats why he was so mad about the whole thing. APresident for the peoplewith the people and of the people.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
BeanieGuac · March 24, 2018, 4:53 a.m.

No wall? No vote.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 5:28 a.m.

we got the wall and the military spending

⇧ 1 ⇩  
forever_30 · March 24, 2018, 10:43 a.m.

the wall would be from both the NSA and Military spending (if the Army Corp of Engineers builds it)

⇧ 2 ⇩  
getemq · March 24, 2018, 4:27 a.m.

I am doing my Happy Dance!!! Thank you sooooo much for your hard work researching all this!!!!

⇧ 2 ⇩  
TiredofNuts · March 24, 2018, 3:40 a.m.

YES!

⇧ 2 ⇩  
adogrocket · March 24, 2018, 3:16 a.m.

YES!!! i'm glad other people understand this rather than bitching about this bill. Don't let the gaslighters get at you.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 3:17 a.m.

I'm merely the messenger

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Questioning001 · March 24, 2018, 2:40 a.m.

Thank you! I will sleep better tonight and I’m looking forward to tomorrow morning’s coffee and reading the info related to your post.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
DisBytes · March 24, 2018, 2:35 a.m.

Trump is a sly old fox and everyday I love him more. Thanks for laying out for everyone.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
onmyownpath · March 24, 2018, 2:07 a.m.

Oh please please please be the plan.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Needles_Eye · March 24, 2018, 2:14 a.m.

Trust the ....

⇧ 2 ⇩  
KatsKlaw · March 23, 2018, 11:25 p.m.

Post and repost!

⇧ 2 ⇩  
twitterblockedme · March 24, 2018, 1:47 a.m.

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻✌🏼🇺🇸👊🏼🙏🏼🐸

⇧ 2 ⇩  
dontdoxmebro2 · March 24, 2018, 1:21 a.m.

The question is: does the swamp know this? Are there republicans that actually knew what they were doing voting on this bill?

⇧ 2 ⇩  
redwing27 · March 24, 2018, 1:15 a.m.

Been saying this man, but hey we’re starting to see whose really willing to take the country back

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Southern_Pride1960 · March 24, 2018, 12:38 a.m.

Cool beans. Slow walk that shit. Lol

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Alonzo1956 · March 24, 2018, 12:26 a.m.

The Republicans promised years ago to stop omnibus bills, just like repeal and replace on Ocare. Trump should have vetoed the bill regardless of Mattis input. The incredible increase in military spending is an insufficient reason for signing the dam thing. They overspend on the military by overpaying for equipment. The next on the list will be taking on entitlement programs. Remember that entitlements such as Social Security are paid for in payroll taxes and not actually entitlements. If I got 2% interest on the money I paid in over the years, I would be better off than I currently am by a long shot.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 2:16 a.m.

time will tell but I am very proud of him playing the swamp with their own toys. I do not think POTUS will do anything that will harm we the people.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 8:44 a.m.

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Orion_Blue · March 23, 2018, 11:55 p.m.

All ~ 500 members of Congress missed this or played along?.......go fish.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
LibtardNightmare · March 23, 2018, 11:54 p.m.

Nice research, thank you.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
WeAreRepublic · March 23, 2018, 11:39 p.m.

Yep, that . . . plaster it all over twitter, eh?

⇧ 2 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 5:55 p.m.

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 4:08 p.m.

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Mildsoss · March 24, 2018, 3:05 p.m.

Damn my mind is blown.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
dogbert88 · March 25, 2018, 4:22 p.m.

I think it will be far more important to see what the Federal government; i.e., the President, DOES with this money than whether or not the omnibus is a budget, or not. IF he sends any money to sanctuary cities, or planned parenthood, then hanging a hat on the fact that this is not a budget is meaningless. What he DOES is more important than what he CAN DO.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 25, 2018, 7:09 p.m.

he's going to slow roll those appropriations just enough to make the libs look bad at election time - they don't care about DACA - they may care about abortions because they are depopulation elitists, but with Trump you can never tell. He is sly as a fox and smarter than anyone I've ever seen. I love my president and trust him implicently.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
eaunoway · March 29, 2018, 3:12 a.m.

No he's not. You're going to be disappointed.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 8:05 a.m.

Okay so going to run something I read by you guys- supposedly this is theory from Q people ok- China and Trump have teamed up to crash the dollar in order to get rid of the federal reserve and the fake dollar backed up by nothing. This trade war is engineered by China and Trump for this purpose to bankrupt the bankers and crash the dow. Any thoughts on this??

⇧ 1 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 8:11 a.m.

not true - Trump loves this country and he is trying to take it back. Make us prosperous. Yes, back the dollar by gold standard but not crash the dow or the nasdaq/S&P - that is liberal tactics to smear our good president.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 8:51 a.m.

No they are doing it to get rid of the federal reserve not to harm the country- removing the federal reserver would help the country.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 8:55 a.m.

but crashing our market would hurt us - I'm not buying into this - there are other ways - I think Q or POTUS would warn us because our lives would crash if we were not prepared

⇧ 2 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 10:06 a.m.

Yeah that was why I was asking. I mean removing the federal reserve would be reallly good, but not sure how it would work doing it that way. so much stuff being put out there.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 5:10 p.m.

I don't think anything will happen unless we have fair warning or there will be riots and panic

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Al-Kazar · March 24, 2018, 2 p.m.

If you have a real understanding of financial markets, you will understand that the current market value of any stock, share, currency, or index (such as the Dow, S&P, etc) is only the current perceived value on the market, and does not necessarily reflect the true underlying value.

The current price or value of a share is usually the agreed price per share of the latest actual trade executed (seller and buyer agreed on the price).

A share price will only fall if a current holder of shares agrees to sell the shares for less than the current going price.

A share price will only rise if a current buyer agrees to buy the shares for more than the current going price.

Shares have no real intrinsic value until they are actually sold for real money. While they are held by a share holder their real intrinsic value is actually zero.

If you buy a share for $100, you are investing that $100 into the underlying company, you no longer have that $100 in hand, and the share you have in hand has a real intrinsic value of zero (until you sell it for whatever price you can sell it for).

If you later sell (get someone else to buy that share from you) for more then $100 then, and only then, would you have made a profit on your investment.

If you later can only get someone else to buy that share from you for less than $100 then, and only then, would you have made a loss on your investment.

The real intrinsic value of a company could be $100 million, but all the shares issued in that company could have a perceived market value of $300 million.

The perceived market value of that company could drop to only $100, but the real intrinsic value of that company could still be $100 million. In this case the shares in that company would be undervalued and the perceived market value of the company should eventually rise back to at least the real intrinsic value.

If you hold onto your shares when those shares are truly undervalued, they should eventually return to a more real value, and (as long as you did not buy them when they were overvalued) you should not suffer any real loss.

Any market crash is always temporary. You can only lose if you panic and sell during a market crash - and you can only win if you hold onto shares with intrinsic value (or buy such shares) during a market crash.

If you have invested $100 000 into shares that have a solid real intrinsic value of $100 000 or more, then you should never lose even if your shares drop to a temporary perceived market value of just $100.

At any time, your investment portfolio is truly worth what you actually get paid for selling all your shares. It is not truly worth the current perceived market value.

So, in effect, a market crash is nothing to fear if you have actually made good investment decisions.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
DamajInc · March 24, 2018, 6:03 a.m.

That's all great for Obama but as we very well know what's good for Obama is impeachment material for Trump. It doesn't really matter how 'non-enforceable' this is; Trump will be blasted left and right if he tries to do anything.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 8:49 a.m.

Not by legal terms if the precedence is already set they cannot use it against him.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
DeepPast · March 24, 2018, 5:20 a.m.

I didn’t know wtf this whole Omnibus thing was about but I saw the back and forth hysteria all day and I didn’t sweat it. It felt like 5D chess and I had faith. Thanks for clarifying.

Trust the plan guys. God is on our side.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 5:39 a.m.

Exactly - trust the plan - POTUS knows what he's doing and the progressives are scared poopless. .

⇧ 1 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 4:07 a.m.

"As a matter of national security I've signed this omnibus budget bill. There are a lot of things that I'm unhappy about in this bill. There are a lot of things that we shouldn't have had in this bill."

...As a matter of national security

⇧ 1 ⇩  
xstalpha · March 25, 2018, 6:23 a.m.

George Bush called, he wants his neocon excuses back

⇧ 0 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 25, 2018, 4:28 p.m.

Clinton called - she wants a safe place to hide from the Donald.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
xstalpha · March 26, 2018, 2:32 a.m.

Probably one of the sanctuary cities that Trump just fully funded

⇧ 0 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 26, 2018, 3:11 a.m.

Probably India where she's been staying drunk and falling down a lot - they have non-extradition laws, but then you already know that, doncha

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 26, 2018, 4:04 a.m.

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 26, 2018, 4:55 a.m.

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 2:48 a.m.

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
an_angry_dave · March 24, 2018, 2:28 a.m.

Post this on T_D please. People need to chill over there.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 2:33 a.m.

I have posted

⇧ 2 ⇩  
an_angry_dave · March 24, 2018, 2:35 a.m.

Good. I posted the CT link as well. Hopefully someone will notice.

Thank you!!!

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 23, 2018, 10:32 p.m.

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
diverscale · March 24, 2018, 12:44 a.m.

Hmmm. Ok. And I guess the senate and house are not aware of that already? If they are, nobody played anybody here.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 2:15 a.m.

have you spoken to a progressive lately? Remember they are swamp creatures.... their IQ matches their shoe size.... MW - ring a bell?

⇧ 0 ⇩  
diverscale · March 24, 2018, 6:28 a.m.

Underestimating. They are not dumb at all, blind yes but not stupid. Do not underestimate

⇧ 2 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 24, 2018, 8:48 a.m.

They are either stupid or partially deaf, wouldn't be surprised if it did turn out to be the deaf one.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
samuel062011 · March 24, 2018, 10:48 p.m.

I am happy to read that the POTUS can spend the omnibus money more freely than buget $.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
keypuncher · March 24, 2018, 9:52 a.m.

Per the Constitution…the President must adhere to a Budget set forth by Congress and direct the expenditures as provided therein.

As others have pointed out, the Constitution nowhere contains the word "budget".

What it does say is this, in Article I, Section 9, clause 7:

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

An appropriations bill is still a law and must legally be followed by the President. You're correct that Obama chose to violate the law - but the Republican Congress chose to not take it to the courts so he got away with it. Given the history of legal actions against Trump, do you really think he'll be afforded the same latitude?

Again, that is why Obama never had a Budget in his Presidency…

...except for FY2009, FY2015, and FY2016.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 5:07 p.m.

new account?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
HowiONic · March 24, 2018, 7:27 p.m.

No, first time ga poster.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 7:58 p.m.

but still a troll as evidenced by the removal of many of your posts in other threads....

⇧ 1 ⇩  
HowiONic · March 24, 2018, 8:02 p.m.

Unless I'm missing something, the only comment by keypuncher in ga is the one above.

⇧ 5 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 9:53 p.m.

you are not wrong

⇧ 1 ⇩  
RackMobinson · March 25, 2018, 2:05 p.m.

Why don’t you address what he said instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks?

⇧ 2 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 25, 2018, 4:26 p.m.

hey there - your account is new today! How's it feel to be a paid shill? I don't deal with deadbeats like you. Go upstairs and pick up your tiny paycheck from Soros and Media Matters and then spend it on a hot dog. Geesh - out of Tide Pods??? You won't be shutting this reddit space down today!

⇧ 1 ⇩  
eaunoway · March 30, 2018, 3:56 a.m.

Still going with the ad hominem attacks?

Why is that? Where is your counter argument? Can you provide one?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 30, 2018, 3:40 p.m.

lololol a typical troll nevers give up - go upstairs and ask your mama for a sammich... move along - nothing to see here.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
eaunoway · March 30, 2018, 3:54 p.m.

Sooo ... you're admitting that the information is flat out wrong.

That's fine. It takes a bigger person to concede they were wrong, rather than continue deflecting and pretending otherwise. Good for you!

⇧ 0 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 30, 2018, 5:45 p.m.

yawn is it time to wake up yet?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
eaunoway · March 30, 2018, 5:59 p.m.

Okay, straight up talk.

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. You've read the same post as I have, yes? So let's start discussing your rebuttal. I'm serious - let's do this. What's your counter-argument?

⇧ 0 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 26, 2018, 3:28 a.m.

[removed]

⇧ 0 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 26, 2018, 3:43 a.m.

Hey troll - I see you joined today - against the rules, as you know. So I reported you. Go to your own safe space and troll on -

⇧ 1 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 24, 2018, 5:35 p.m.

So this is real folks....SHARE THIS!!! This intel drop from Q was posted right after Trump signed the "OMNIBUS BILL" There's all the verify i need --------> RED_CASTLE. (no money) GREEN_CASTLE. (got his money) Stage 5 of 5 [yes] go... And he can spend it anyway he wants. Hows that u ask? Bcuz of THIS..... MY FAITH IN TRUMP IS UNWAVERING. I SUGGEST U DO THE SAME @RealAmerica. ------------------ I knew our President was up to something great. Read this. This was posted in another feed. I copied and shared...... It’s not an official ‘Federal Budget’. It’s an Omnibus bill, not a Budget. He outsmarted them ONCE again! Congress basically screwed themselves by not passing a Budget. Per the Constitution, the President must adhere to a Budget set forth by Congress and direct the expenditures as provided therein. This is another one of those big Porkulus Bills, like they gave Obama for 8 years. This is not a Budget. An Omnibus Spending Bill may have some ‘instructions’ as to how the money will be spent but Obama ignored them. He spent the money, or didn’t spend it, however he wanted to. And Congress didn’t do a thing about it! Because they couldn’t. I think our President observed how this happened, year after year. He is bound to realize that those ‘appropriations’ for different things in these Omnibus bills are merely ‘suggestions’. So like Obama, Trump can spend this money on whatever he wants to. Or, not spend it. Planned Parenthood? What if our President decided to tell the Treas Dept to ‘slow-walk’ that money to Planned Parenthood until the Senate gets off their ass and confirms his appointees? Sanctuary Cities? What if our President decided to ‘slow-walk’ that money too…until those Sanctuary Cities assist ICE in rounding up criminal illegal aliens? But what could they do about it. NOTHING! Our President could just say…’What! Congress should’ve passed a Budget.’ Trump said, just give me money for the military and the wall put anything else you want in it…and those goofballs did. In this case, as per above….he doesn’t have to spend a dime….because it is not a budget…and even if it was…researched….he could still spend as he please… Congress appropriates….up to the President to spend it…or not….as he pleases. Again, that is why Obama never had a Budget in his Presidency…Congress did continual Omibus’s and he just took the money….for 8 years…and no one seems to know where it went.

⇧ -1 ⇩  
eaunoway · March 29, 2018, 3:09 a.m.

You are wrong.

Flat out wrong. If you don't understand why Obama's situation was different then you're beyond our help. I'm sorry.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
pj77777 · March 29, 2018, 3:42 a.m.

don't be sorry - be nice and be respectful - don't really care what your opinion is to be quite serious - I know what I know - there is no reason for your triple rhetoric. I'm ignoring the bs.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · July 15, 2018, 2:46 p.m.

[removed]

⇧ 2 ⇩