this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2024
241 points (92.3% liked)

World News

32321 readers
984 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

You know it doesn't have to be that way right? The government could be funded at a base level automatically just by a simple majority in the senate and the house. But the Democrats love the excuses so that idiots like you will support them anyway.

[–] Maeve@kbin.social 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Can I please get a source on that? Tyia.

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The federal budget is legally originated in the house of representative. The details of this budget can be literally anything. They can say that only agency's that start with the letter A are funded, etc, it doesn't matter. They could zero out the military budget if they wanted. They could pass universal healthcare if they want. It's an appropriations bill of a sovereign nation, there aren't any rules. This bill in whatever form, then goes to the Senate where again, it can be passed with a simple majority.

Yes the rules of the senate allow a filibuster to exist, but any bill can be filibuster proof with a simple majority of the senate. There is no constitution guarantee of the filibuster. The only reason the filibuster exists is because the rules of the senate (which only require a simple majority to change) allow it to exist.

Any funding bill can say, fiscal government spending will stay constant year over year, until a future funding bill changes it q.e.d.

[–] Maeve@kbin.social 2 points 7 months ago

Oh, I'm so sorry! I didn't know what I was thinking when I read "simple majority," please accept my apologies for making you do the extra work!

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works -1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

But it's not how it works right now and they need to deal with the system as it is now until it doesn't work this way anymore. Voting against it wouldn't change the system in place.

[–] Alsephina@lemmy.ml 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Should've voted no then. Would likely stop the genocide in a few weeks/months if the US government stops functioning and can't maintain its colony in Palestine anymore. It would also give the working class an opportunity for revolution to establish a system that doesn't require genocide to function.

But of course, liberal "democracies" and the two-party system just represent the interests of the capitalist class. Just wish liberals and conservatives would acknowledge that and stop defending the two parties, and spend that time and effort organizing against it.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works -5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Welcome to the real world buddy, I swear this place is filled with 15 years old revolutionaries 😂

[–] Alsephina@lemmy.ml 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I imagine "civilians" in nazi Germany said similar things.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works -1 points 7 months ago

Yeah, voting no to the budget and shutting down the government would have lead to a revolution this time, I swear guys!

What? How come it didn't lead to one when Trump was in power?

Eh...

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago

Simple majority can change it, and historically there have been plenty of options for democrats to do such a thing, but they never seem to want to put provisions in place to help people for some reasons.