In terms of cutting funding for Iraq,

[MoonRiver]

what happens if the House votes to cut off the money, but the Senate Republics filibuster?

Will the entire U.S. budget be put on hold, or just the military spending part?

And would such a stalemate keep * from being able to pay for the war? Or is there some loophole he could use?

[jwirr]

1. The purse is one thing that the House has total control over. The

Senate cannot do anything about it.

[bigtree]

2. doesn't the Senate get the bill when it passes out of the House?

then to conference if the Senate passes a different bill . . . ?

[jwirr]

3. I don't think so. They take bills that need funding or the budget and

decide which way the money is spent. That is why it is so important that the Democtratic Party hold the House. Say we want to fund alternative energy. The Senate creates a program and the house decides to fund it or not.

[bigtree]

4. funding bills have to, by law, originate in the House

but they still have to go through the rest of the process by which legislation actually becomes law. The question, I think, is to what extent can the House set the standard for the action by the Senate which will follow?

[MoonRiver]

5. So, are you saying that the House unilaterally could cut off funds for the war?

If so, we're really in the cat bird seat on Iraq. And it is time to call the troops home.

[jwirr]

6. They can but it is not as easy as that. There is a part of this that

most here on DU will never accept. These politicians want to win in 08 and I also want them to SO they need to do it in a way that they will not be blamed for deserting our troops: pugs are already accusing them of abandoning the troops without adequate equipment, etc. (Blatantly untrue of course since it is the last pug congress that is responsible for the lack of equipment) If they cut off money and our soldiers are massacred it is us (Dems) who will get the blame. That is why I like what Murpha is proposing. They will not cut funds to anyone who ends up in Iraq but *ss cannot send anyone who does not have adequate training and equipment, then they house refuses to give funds to equip the new troops and no one goes. Murpha also is saying no permanent bases in Iraq and that should help end this as it is the ultimate goal of *ss and co.

As to getting all the troops home I think that will soon become a priority for pugs as well as Dems. But that is up to "we the people". We need to keep the pressure on, especially on the pugs.