• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP Rejects Adding More Money To Beef Up Election Security

poweRob said:
True. But we have federal congressmen saying the money hasn't been spent. It has been disbursed to the states and put outside the purview of these congressmen so I seriously doubt they have much of a clue as to what states have and have not specifically spent.
Click to expand...
You dont 'seriously doubt' its been spent or that the Senator doesnt know. Be honest FFS. You dont know. You haved no foundation to support what you 'know'. And you dont care. Because all you are doing is spouting partisan rhetoric.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Disbursed is not the same as spent. The next logical question is if the money has not been spent, disbursed, but nor spent, then why does Congresse need to appropriate more money to be disbursed, but not spent?
Click to expand...

No, that's not the next logical question. Why is more money needed? I'm not sure. The better question is why has the initial money not been spent (if that's even true, which is contested)?
 
In government time it is.
 
VanceMack said:
:lamo

Silly leftists...you will parrot anything you are told to. And sadly...obviously...you wont bother reading the actual articles you cite nor while you apply logic or reason to your blathering.

“There’s $380 million that’s already allocated that hasn’t been spent ― not a dime,” Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) told HuffPost. “No one explained to me why we needed $250 million more.”
Click to expand...

The real story is why the money has been allocated yet the Trump administration's State Department has not taken the money and used it for its intended purpose?

That's not a silly lertist thing it's a threat to National Security right-wing thing
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
No, that's not the next logical question. Why is more money needed? I'm not sure. The better question is why has the initial money not been spent (if that's even true, which is contested)?
Click to expand...


Your conflating two different actions and two different responsibilities of two different branches of government - it's the responsibility of the Executive Branch to obligate and track the money that is granted to state and local governments by appropriations that are passed by Congress. If the money had been spent, there would be a record of where the money went, when it was spent, and who spent it, that is reported to the Executive Branch of the government as I showed in the post I linked to 2 CFR 200.

As for why the money hasn't been spent yet, that's another administrative action that is the responsibility of the Executive Branch and has nothing to do with whether Congress does or doesn't need to appropriate more money. Congress has oversight responsibility of the Executive Branch and their actions. Congress has no oversight authority over the state and local governments that receive grant money. The simple fact that the money has not been spent is enough for Congress to make their decision to not appropriate additional money.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Your conflating two different actions and two different responsibilities of two different branches of government - it's the responsibility of the Executive Branch to obligate and track the money that is granted to state and local governments by appropriations that are passed by Congress. If the money had been spent, there would be a record of where the money went, when it was spent, and who spent it, that is reported to the Executive Branch of the government as I showed in the post I linked to 2 CFR 200.

As for why the money hasn't been spent yet, that's another administrative action that is the responsibility of the Executive Branch and has nothing to do with whether Congress does or doesn't need to appropriate more money. Congress has oversight responsibility of the Executive Branch and their actions. Congress has no oversight authority over the state and local governments that receive grant money. The simple fact that the money has not been spent is enough for Congress to make their decision to not appropriate additional money.
Click to expand...

Your middle school civics lesson notwithstanding, your opinion related to the questionable justification for refusing to vote on additional election security funds is based on incomplete information and a lack of creative imagination. I find the excuse to be a mindless non sequitur.
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
Your middle school civics lesson notwithstanding, your opinion related to the questionable justification for refusing to vote on additional election security funds is based on incomplete information and a lack of creative imagination. I find the excuse to be a mindless non sequitur.
Click to expand...

Ignoring the unrelated SA remarks, are you making the argument, that when anyone asks for money in a way that makes it sound important (think of the children, as an example), regardless of whether it's actually needed, should be funded by the Congress?
 
OscarLevant said:
The real story is why the money has been allocated yet the Trump administration's State Department has not taken the money and used it for its intended purpose?

That's not a silly lertist thing it's a threat to National Security right-wing thing
Click to expand...
:lamo

Yer so damn lost...did you even read the story? You are like TOTALLY talking out of your ass. But hey...thanks for proving the point.
 
VanceMack said:
:lamo

Yer so damn lost...did you even read the story? You are like TOTALLY talking out of your ass. But hey...thanks for proving the point.
Click to expand...

Yes, I read the story, more money is not needed because of $380 million already allocated but not spent.

The real story is that that money is not being used for it's intended purpose, so why is that? Why is it just sitting there?

I don't know what your issue is, but the article begs that question, which I found no answer to in then article, hence my post.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Ignoring the unrelated SA remarks, are you making the argument, that when anyone asks for money in a way that makes it sound important (think of the children, as an example), regardless of whether it's actually needed, should be funded by the Congress?
Click to expand...

No, I'm not.
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
This is great (from the OP article):

“There’s $380 million that’s already allocated that hasn’t been spent ― not a dime,” Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) told HuffPost. “No one explained to me why we needed $250 million more.”

You mean Congress appropriated $380 million to election security five months ago and 45's administration hasn't spent a dime of it? I wonder why. Even better, Republican senators cite the absence of any action by the administration as conclusive evidence that election security doesn't need any more resources.
Click to expand...

You once again should do some actual research before commenting.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ion-for-election-cyber-security-idUSKBN1GX2LC

The money is setup as block grants for states. The president has 0 power over this money.
The states write the grant proposals for funding not the president.
 
OscarLevant said:
Yes, I read the story, more money is not needed because of $380 million already allocated but not spent.

The real story is that that money is not being used for it's intended purpose, so why is that? Why is it just sitting there?

I don't know what your issue is, but the article begs that question, which I found no answer to in then article, hence my post.
Click to expand...

The money is in block grants.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ion-for-election-cyber-security-idUSKBN1GX2LC

Evidently the states are not writing the prosals for it.
 
OscarLevant said:
Yes, I read the story, more money is not needed because of $380 million already allocated but not spent.

The real story is that that money is not being used for it's intended purpose, so why is that? Why is it just sitting there?

I don't know what your issue is, but the article begs that question, which I found no answer to in then article, hence my post.
Click to expand...
:lamo

FFS

Its money for the STATES. The STATE DEPARTMENT doesnt have **** to do with this. Neither does the Trump administration.

Dear sweet baby hay zeus......

:lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom