This nonsense need to be nipped in the bud before it gets stated

The budget would not have been passed and spending would have likely continued at a much lower rate on a continuing resolution. In either case, Clinton had little to nothing to do with it.

 

Quite literally, there are thousands of public sector workers who are earning well above six figures on RETIREMENT PENSIONS in Illinois.

Their is no possible way that they could have contributed enough to the public sector pension programs to cover the costs of six figure retirements. Many of them retire after 20 years.

My buddy graduated highschool with me in 1997, was a firefighter from 1998 until 2018 and has retired with a pension of about 75,000 per year. At the age of 41.

He now has another job with the local municipality in Public Works, that if he puts another 20 years in, retiring at 61 he will have another $75,000 pension.

After 40 years of work, he will be pulling in over $150,000 in pension at the age of 61.

And the Democrats can't figure out why the State is broke. They make these deals with the public sector unions, knowing full well they are unsustainable, buy the votes of the Union Members to stay in power, and the cycle continues.

 

only if you have no idea how bills become law. Clinton had the absolute and final say.

 

Nope. We don't have a dictatorship.

 

strawman.

We have a constitution, and it is crystal clear on how bills become law. The president has the absolute and final say over every single bill that comes to his desk, unless there is a veto proof majority.

 

His absolute and final authority is limited to a approving or disapproving. Additionally, he has no authority to dictate how that bill will read before he reaches his desk. In other words, his only options were to approve a bill which limited his spending or disapprove the bill which would have also limited his spending. Net result is that his spending authority was limited by congress.

 

Which is quite literally absolute and final authority.

only if you don't know how bills become law. The president can and has voiced his intention to veto a bill that comes to his desk if it includes things he doesn't want, or if it doesn't include things he wants. He has the absolute and final say on every single bill that comes to his desk, absent a veto proof majority.

 

He can only sign it or not sign it. That is the limit of his absolute and complete authority. If you know of something else he could do, please enlighten us.

 

which means it's law, or it's kindling. Thus, absolute and final authority.

that's what absolute authority means. He can single handedly make it law, or reject it.

 

As can congress. They have the same authority and they limited the spending in the bill they sent to him. He could either approve the lower spending limit or be stuck with an even lower spending limit.

 

Which is irrelevant to the fact that the House holds the power of the purse.

"Congress—and in particular, the House of Representatives—is invested with the “power of the purse,” the ability to tax and spend public money for the national government. Massachusetts’ Elbridge Gerry said at the Federal Constitutional Convention that the House “was more immediately the representatives of the people, and it was a maxim that the people ought to hold the purse-strings.”"
THE POWER OF THE PURSE
https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Power-of-the-Purse/

 

no. They can only propose legislation.

nope. He had the ultimate and absolute authority over those budgets.

 

they quite demonstrably do not, as I and a dozen other people keep pointing out. I suggest you find a 6th grader in your neighborhood and see if they will let you borrow their civics text book.

 

Why dont we get back to the point of this thread-------------the absolute ignorance of 6 figure retirement incomes for government workers. Can ANYONE give a good reason why they should have retirement incomes 3 and 4 times what the private sector gets.

 

Personal attacks like that are not very persuasive. Here is a better source than "a 6th grader civics text book.":

"Constitutional Framing
Debate at the Constitutional Convention centered on two issues. The first was to ensure that the executive would not spend money without congressional authorization. The second concerned the roles the House and Senate would play in setting fiscal policy.

At the Convention, the framers considered the extent to which the Senate—like the House of Lords—should be limited in its consideration of budget bills. The provision was part of a compromise between the large and small states. Smaller states, which would be over-represented in the Senate, would concede the power to originate money bills to the House, where states with larger populations would have greater control. Speaking in favor of the provision, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania said, “It was a maxim that those who feel, can best judge. This end would . . . be best attained, if money affairs were to be confined to the immediate representatives of the people.”"
THE POWER OF THE PURSE
https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Power-of-the-Purse/

 

I agree. Which is why I didn't personally attack you. I suggested you read a 6th grade civics text book and familiarize yourself with the US system of government.

no, that is not a better source than a civics text book. The house is only 1/3 of the whole when it comes to passing a bill, ANY bill, including budgets. The senate and the president can say nope to any budget the house proposes.

 

It take both approvals. He can either sign what they hand him or he gets nothing.

 

nope. either he signs it, or he vetoes it and it doesn't pass. this is basic 6th grade civics.

 

Right. And if he doesn't sign it, he is stuck with an even smaller budget.

 

no he isn't

 

What happens if he does not sign or he vetoes it?

 

Congress must pass another bill, to send to him.

 

What happens in the meantime?

 

Democratic high-tax states have raised taxes to make up for less Federal aid the last 35 years. They continued the investment in their citizens and that is why they are also more successful than red States. Just the way the more democratic cities are more successful than GOP rural areas.

 

nothing