Live: House votes on spending bill with $5 billion for border wall


#1

House just voted to pass CR with $5Billion for Wall!


#2

OOPS!

Correction …

They voted in favor of the Rule that will allow the House to move to a vote on a Continuing Resolution. When that is voted on and approved, the money will be passed and the bill will be sent to the Senate for reconciliation. This will happen tonight.

Sorry folks!


#3

It doesn’t matter. Once it gets the Senate, the stupid 60 vote rule will kill it. Perhaps a Constitutional scholar can tell me where the 60 vote rule is in the Constitution.

This government will do nothing to enhance border security because a majority of Congress doesn’t want it. That includes the Democrats and the RINOS.


#4

It isn’t, it is a Rule of the U.S. Senate. They vote on their Rules at the beginning of each new session. A majority vote could modify or eliminate it.


#5

It passed the House! Now for the Schumer.

Update 5: The U.S. House passes a stopgap govt funding bill that includes $5.7 billion for a wall on the border with Mexico after President Trump said he wouldn’t sign a bill that didn’t have the extra money, setting up a conflict with the Senate.


#6

It’s going to be interesting. Don’t forget that there are 535 people who want to go home for the holidays and many have already left.


#7

If only Schumer would leave and not come back…


#8

Extra-majorities are awesome. They slow things down and requires more widespread agreement to pass a bill. I’d like to see 67 percents and 75 percents required for more things. They work in your favor when the other side is in power. It prevented a lot of tax increases in my state. Now the Dims have a super-majority, and the governor is ready to rock and roll with tax increases on everything she can think of to cover her nasty spending habit. The Constitution does have an example of a super-majority built into it (ratifying amendments), so the concept is not in the least bit anti-Constitution.


#9

On the Federal Government level, high taxes have less to do with spending and more to do with “fairness.” The so-called “progressives” need to punish and keep people who do well down to make it “fair” for the poor. Forget about the fact that higher income and net worth people provide the opportunities for jobs and investment which makes the economy work. Forget about the fact that more jobs and opportunities will improve the lives of many people and provide ways to lift the poor out of poverty. No, that’s not important to a “progressive” unless government is providing the transfer payments and opportunities. All of the private sector grown is just “truckle down economics.”

No, the important thing is that the poor know that the high income people and wealthy are getting it in the neck at tax time. It won’t make the poor people’s lives any better, but at least they know that the wealthy will be getting hit with high taxes, which should will make them feel better about the “fairness of the system.”

Thus is one of the great lessons learned at the grand religion of "progressivism, " should really be renamed “regressivism.” Their movement is really looking to go back to the days of royalty when a few people who were “wired with the government” controlled most of the assets.


#10

:rofl: Your government inaction…


#11

Well, supposedly BO was a “constitutional scholar”. Right. And the slob was supposedly a “Rhodes Scholar”. Right. Neither are worth a wooden nickel.