Is Congress obligated to send * a spending bill?

[ncteechur]

I mean if Congress controls the purse strings and the House is where all appropriations bills begin and Pelosi as Speaker has enormous control over which bills even make it the floor for a vote, then can't she just not bring up another bill. The way is not funded. Over. Period.??????

Am I missing something?

[onenote]

1. no, but that's not the point

what you are missing is the fact that a majority in the House and Senate wants to pass a funding bill. Yes, a majority of both Congress and the nation wanted it tied to a withdrawal deadline; but failing that, a very solid majority of Congress (and of the electorate) wants a funding bill at least for the short term.

[ncteechur]

2. And they passed one-- he can take it or leave it.

Just as Bush said-we can be successful or not successful. He can get the money or not.

No more bills. Tough titty for Bush. Congress did their job-- * didn't do his.

That is the message for the airwaves--

"President Bush wanted $$ for troops. Congress offered him more money than he asked for. He turned Congress down and let our troops down. Congress did its job. Bush didn't do his."

[FtWayneBlue]

3. I agree -

Congress shouldn't compromise any further. Bush had his chance to fund his war, but didn't like the strings. So I say, don't send him any more money for his war.