3 ms·

Correct, the executive branch can always opt to not spend the money it was allocated. It's just that as far as I can recall no one has ever really tried to spe

Correct, the executive branch can always opt to not spend the money it was allocated. It's just that as far as I can recall no one has ever really tried to spend less in the government. EDIT: I was mistaken, please look up Impoundment of appropriated funds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_fu...

nessbot 2y ago
That is simply not true. They'd have to go to congress to have the apportioned spending rescinded.
- normalaccess 2y ago
  I stand corrected! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_fu...
hamburga 2y ago
Wrong; impoundment is illegal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_fu...
- normalaccess 2y ago
  Oh, you learn something new every day. Gracias
  - nessbot 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - dredmorbius 2y ago
      OP did acknowledge and edit their comment to correct the misinfo. Sometimes we might want to more gently support that, as it is in itself rare. The advice to confirm belief before commenting is valid, the tone is overly harsh.
      - nessbot 2y ago
        How would you change the tone? I feel like that was a plain and matter-of-fact sentence. I get the term "misinformation" is feels loaded but it wasn't unfair to say. edit and the fact that the poster did have the good sense to add an edit was part of the reason I decided to say something because telling someone who didn't would just be a waste of time
        dredmorbius 2y ago
        "Confirming your beliefs prior to posting would be useful here." That edits the swipe of "spreading misinformation", which whilst accurate is charged and puts the reader on the defensive, as well as the more egregious "you know what you are talking about" which is nakedly aggressive. HN discussion is highly sensitive to nuances of tone, a point dang makes frequently: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7905762 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7905762>, <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23047709 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23047709> and <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17689715 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17689715> especially. (That last isn't too significant for a well-down-thread comment such as yours, but still plays a strong role, especially in politically-tinged discussion, and especially in the present environment.) (I make a point of confirming information I provide in comments, largely through inline links or footnotes. Of which I am ... inordinately ... fond: <https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adredmorbius%20%22notes%3A%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...>. I've more than once changed my comment significantly on discovering my initial beliefs were false.)
        nessbot 2y ago
        Agree that there are ways to say it nicer, but I still contend that what I said was not aggressive. The poster started with "Correct!" and they didn't understand the thing they said was "correct." I think it's fair to point out that they inappropriately made statements about something they didn't know. They even admitted to learning it afterwards. Its fair criticism and if folks wanna be making claims online they should be able to handle it.
  - lesuorac 2y ago
    Keep in mind, the current administration sees the Impoundment Control Act as unconstitutional so you might unlearn something another day. https://www.npr.org/2025/02/02/nx-s1-5281438/understanding-the-law-at-the-heart-of-confusion-over-trumps-federal-funding-freeze https://www.npr.org/2025/02/02/nx-s1-5281438/understanding-t...
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    Indeed. This law was challenged many, many times in history. Even as recent as Clinton. Congress put it down everytime.
taylodl 2y ago
> Correct, the executive branch can always opt to not spend the money it was allocated. No, they cannot. Trump was impeached during his first term over this very issue. Congress had appropriated funding for the Ukraine, Trump didn't want to provide it without obtaining concessions from Zelenski. Just like Trump doesn't want to provide California any FEMA money for the LA fires without concessions. Trump has been through this before, he knows it's illegal, but he doesn't care. It's kinda funny that people expect a felon to care about the law.
- almosthere 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - nessbot 2y ago
    You got any source on the COVID coverup? To the second line: cool, if that's what you want, then get your reps to write a law and have the rest of congress pass it and the president sign it.
maxlybbert 2y ago
Well, Biden tried to not spend money to build a wall on the border. And he essentially ran out the clock in that one, so I guess there has been recent success.
- mikeyouse 2y ago
  The false equivalence is so tiring. It’s okay to admit things are unprecedented. When asked about the news on Oct. 5 that new border wall construction would indeed commence under his administration, Biden told reporters: “The border wall — the money was appropriated for the border wall. I tried to get to them to reappropriate it, to redirect that money. They didn’t. They wouldn’t. And in the meantime, there’s nothing under the law other than they have to use the money for what it was appropriated. I can’t stop that.” Trump intended to build the wall with no environmental assessments or permits and congress wrote in a waiver since the border was “an emergency” but Biden chose to rescind the emergency declaration and follow the long-established federal construction process instead of using the waivers which does indeed slow things down. That’s nothing like what is happening with Musk “deleting” entire departments or unilaterally stopping funding because he doesn’t like the phrasing of the grants.
  - maxlybbert 2y ago
    I wasn’t trying to claim any equivalence. I was replying to “It's just that as far as I can recall no one has ever really tried to spend less in the government.” Biden did, in fact, try to spend less than was appropriated.
    - daveguy 2y ago
      Maybe you should read up a bit before you repeat false talking points: https://www.factcheck.org/2023/10/bidens-border-wall-explained/ https://www.factcheck.org/2023/10/bidens-border-wall-explain... Biden tried to get congress to re-appropriate the funds. They wouldn't, so he spent it as he was obligated.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  >And he essentially ran out the clock in that one I'll just be in good faith and believe you wholesale. Yes, that is one way to fight the spending. Make the government argue until a deadline is hit and then they either shut down or compromise. Happens much too often. But that's the point: the budget wasn't made yet. Trump wants to argue over funding that was already in place. If he wanted this chaos legally, he'd have been stalling out the March funding next quarter. But once it's finalized, it's finalized and many challenges over the centuries were shot down.

nessbot 2y ago

That is simply not true. They'd have to go to congress to have the apportioned spending rescinded.

normalaccess 2y ago
I stand corrected! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_fu...

hamburga 2y ago

Wrong; impoundment is illegal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_fu...

normalaccess 2y ago
Oh, you learn something new every day. Gracias
- nessbot 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    OP did acknowledge and edit their comment to correct the misinfo. Sometimes we might want to more gently support that, as it is in itself rare. The advice to confirm belief before commenting is valid, the tone is overly harsh.
    - nessbot 2y ago
      How would you change the tone? I feel like that was a plain and matter-of-fact sentence. I get the term "misinformation" is feels loaded but it wasn't unfair to say. edit and the fact that the poster did have the good sense to add an edit was part of the reason I decided to say something because telling someone who didn't would just be a waste of time
      - dredmorbius 2y ago
        "Confirming your beliefs prior to posting would be useful here." That edits the swipe of "spreading misinformation", which whilst accurate is charged and puts the reader on the defensive, as well as the more egregious "you know what you are talking about" which is nakedly aggressive. HN discussion is highly sensitive to nuances of tone, a point dang makes frequently: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7905762 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7905762>, <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23047709 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23047709> and <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17689715 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17689715> especially. (That last isn't too significant for a well-down-thread comment such as yours, but still plays a strong role, especially in politically-tinged discussion, and especially in the present environment.) (I make a point of confirming information I provide in comments, largely through inline links or footnotes. Of which I am ... inordinately ... fond: <https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adredmorbius%20%22notes%3A%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...>. I've more than once changed my comment significantly on discovering my initial beliefs were false.)
        nessbot 2y ago
        Agree that there are ways to say it nicer, but I still contend that what I said was not aggressive. The poster started with "Correct!" and they didn't understand the thing they said was "correct." I think it's fair to point out that they inappropriately made statements about something they didn't know. They even admitted to learning it afterwards. Its fair criticism and if folks wanna be making claims online they should be able to handle it.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  Keep in mind, the current administration sees the Impoundment Control Act as unconstitutional so you might unlearn something another day. https://www.npr.org/2025/02/02/nx-s1-5281438/understanding-the-law-at-the-heart-of-confusion-over-trumps-federal-funding-freeze https://www.npr.org/2025/02/02/nx-s1-5281438/understanding-t...
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Indeed. This law was challenged many, many times in history. Even as recent as Clinton. Congress put it down everytime.

taylodl 2y ago

> Correct, the executive branch can always opt to not spend the money it was allocated. No, they cannot. Trump was impeached during his first term over this very issue. Congress had appropriated funding for the Ukraine, Trump didn't want to provide it without obtaining concessions from Zelenski. Just like Trump doesn't want to provide California any FEMA money for the LA fires without concessions. Trump has been through this before, he knows it's illegal, but he doesn't care. It's kinda funny that people expect a felon to care about the law.

almosthere 2y ago
[flagged]
- nessbot 2y ago
  You got any source on the COVID coverup? To the second line: cool, if that's what you want, then get your reps to write a law and have the rest of congress pass it and the president sign it.

maxlybbert 2y ago

Well, Biden tried to not spend money to build a wall on the border. And he essentially ran out the clock in that one, so I guess there has been recent success.

mikeyouse 2y ago
The false equivalence is so tiring. It’s okay to admit things are unprecedented. When asked about the news on Oct. 5 that new border wall construction would indeed commence under his administration, Biden told reporters: “The border wall — the money was appropriated for the border wall. I tried to get to them to reappropriate it, to redirect that money. They didn’t. They wouldn’t. And in the meantime, there’s nothing under the law other than they have to use the money for what it was appropriated. I can’t stop that.” Trump intended to build the wall with no environmental assessments or permits and congress wrote in a waiver since the border was “an emergency” but Biden chose to rescind the emergency declaration and follow the long-established federal construction process instead of using the waivers which does indeed slow things down. That’s nothing like what is happening with Musk “deleting” entire departments or unilaterally stopping funding because he doesn’t like the phrasing of the grants.
- maxlybbert 2y ago
  I wasn’t trying to claim any equivalence. I was replying to “It's just that as far as I can recall no one has ever really tried to spend less in the government.” Biden did, in fact, try to spend less than was appropriated.
  - daveguy 2y ago
    Maybe you should read up a bit before you repeat false talking points: https://www.factcheck.org/2023/10/bidens-border-wall-explained/ https://www.factcheck.org/2023/10/bidens-border-wall-explain... Biden tried to get congress to re-appropriate the funds. They wouldn't, so he spent it as he was obligated.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
>And he essentially ran out the clock in that one I'll just be in good faith and believe you wholesale. Yes, that is one way to fight the spending. Make the government argue until a deadline is hit and then they either shut down or compromise. Happens much too often. But that's the point: the budget wasn't made yet. Trump wants to argue over funding that was already in place. If he wanted this chaos legally, he'd have been stalling out the March funding next quarter. But once it's finalized, it's finalized and many challenges over the centuries were shot down.