this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024
247 points (99.6% liked)

politics

19085 readers
3961 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
  • Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson announced a new temporary government funding proposal with key amendments from the original bill he put forward earlier this month.
  • The new proposal goes against Donald Trump's wishes and makes some concessions to Democrats.
  • The new bill would fund the government through Dec. 20 and does not include any part of the SAVE Act, the Trump-backed election security proposal that would require people to show proof of citizenship to register as a voter.
  • The previous version of Johnson's bill, which Trump preferred, was attached to the SAVE Act and would have funded the government through March 2025.

🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PassingThrough@lemmy.world 41 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Y’all need to get a word in with your representatives that what’s needed is legislation preventing budget bills from containing anything other than budgets.

That would solve this problem real quick. It’s been sounding stupider and stupider using the budget meeting to force unpopular agendas down throats or else the government is held hostage.

I think it would fit the bill if budgeting was held up over allocations, one side wants more border spending, one side wants more educational spending, etc, that would make sense but “allow us to attach this whole other unrelated law to declare the sky is actually green(which also contains a tag along that I get to be emperor), or nobody gets paid” is just ridiculous.

[–] lemmydripzdotz456@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yes, but also: Everything the government does costs money because someone has to make sure it's being done. This stupid SAVE thing would have cost money to enforce and, therefore, it could be argued that it is related to the budget. That's not a a very good argument, but it's enough to slow down the process while they argue over it.

[–] PassingThrough@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

An excellent argument to be made when arguing about the

STop Unrelated Crap Killing budgets act.

STUCK(b) Act. See? Even has a cool acronym.

And if they take a few dozen sessions deliberating over it while the government keeps funding and running on previous bills, that’s OK. That’s the point. There should not be an easy path to leverage government’s ability function to force a vote in your favor, bypassing traditional debate, compromise, and processes.