Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheBiggerFish]

...Yeah, we can fix that problem.

[Helgoland]

How are you sure? To me it looks like the US has started its descent along a downward spiral leading to decay and irrelevance - and I say so without any Schadenfreude. On the contrary, I love the US more than any of my aquaintances - that's why its problems bring me a lot of pain.

[Powder Miner]

I strongly object to the notion that the US is to fall into obscurity and stagnance-- contrary to popular (and highly repeated) belief, Congress IS doing quite a few things, just... not the things the democrats or Obama want, and when the things he's trying to do are being shafted, it's real easy to publicize it and spin it into a wider trend than it actually is. Congress and Obama are fighting, and it leads to occasional showdowns... but they're all getting resolved, that's the thing, and the things that don't get latched onto by the media/internet are the things that ARE happening. It's less exciting to hear about a govt running.

And if I'm to be perfectly frank, one of the things that most reassures me about my country's position is seeing that other nations struggle with the same things we do... and to certain extents we're handling them a lot better, despite the endless stream of bluster and flak we put out.

(We have our unique and very real problems but... they don't make our democracy unworkable.)

[wierd]

Just this once, I want to see a presidential candidate run under this policy:

1) The executive order system is broken, and should not exist. The argument that congress is broken, and needs to be circumvented is wrong headed in every way. The obstinance of congress against the executive, and vise versa with both and the judicial, is exactly how the branches of government check and balance each other.  Due to prior administrations having this power, however, the need to shore up this security hole in government is glaring. So, only two more executive orders: 1) re-evaluate the mandate for all prior orders, and dismantle as appropriate. 2) No new executive orders, as the executive has a history of abuse of this power.

2) the power of the executive in the legislative process is the veto. This is by design. This is to prevent congress from passing an omnibus loaded with hidden evil-- the president will read the body of every proposed law, then veto or pass accordingly. If the bill contains hidden evil under a sugar coating of shoes for orphans, the onus for those orphans not getting shoes is on congress, not the president for doing his job and vetoing it.

Thats it. Just those two things. But it will never happen.

[Twi]

IIRC, presidents have tried in the past to get the power to have line-item veto (that is, to veto individual parts of a bill, not just whole bills). As you can see, such things have not happened.

[origamiscienceguy]

Just this once, I want to see a presidential candidate run under this policy:

1) The executive order system is broken, and should not exist. The argument that congress is broken, and needs to be circumvented is wrong headed in every way. The obstinance of congress against the executive, and vise versa with both and the judicial, is exactly how the branches of government check and balance each other.  Due to prior administrations having this power, however, the need to shore up this security hole in government is glaring. So, only two more executive orders: 1) re-evaluate the mandate for all prior orders, and dismantle as appropriate. 2) No new executive orders, as the executive has a history of abuse of this power.

2) the power of the executive in the legislative process is the veto. This is by design. This is to prevent congress from passing an omnibus loaded with hidden evil-- the president will read the body of every proposed law, then veto or pass accordingly. If the bill contains hidden evil under a sugar coating of shoes for orphans, the onus for those orphans not getting shoes is on congress, not the president for doing his job and vetoing it.

Thats it. Just those two things. But it will never happen.

*applause*

[Strife26]

Of course it can't happen. When the debt limit needs to be increased, because Congress can't raise the limit to match the money spent in the budgets that Congress approves, and the conclusion is that it's the President's fault, what do we expect to happen?

Reagan and Clinton I both asked for line item veto power  so they could leave shoes but kill the stupid shit. That'd be a giant increase in executive power, however. The judicial branch rightfully said nooooowp.


Which is almost appropriate to start up the USA chant, if it wasn't the American system of checks successfully balancing out a possible solution for a problem.

Eh, it's new years.

USA. USA. USA.

[wierd]

The failure of congress, is a failure of congress. Not of the presidency.

Letting congress play chicken with the oncomming train of default, by passing the poisoned omnibus-- that's the fault of the presidency.

The political solution is to declare, 5 months before the deadline, that as president, you *WILL* veto the measure if it contains anything other than the budget, and that you are dead serious.  When they start tacking nonbudget items on, warn them again in a state of the union address.  When they still fail to heed the warning, veto, then tell them to hold and emergency session and ratify a clean bill.

If they still cant do their jobs right, lay the blame at their feet.

[TheBiggerFish]

Wish that they would do that...

[Strife26]

It'd be pretty cool to see. I can't predict anyone but maybe Bernie having the balls to go for it, though

[TheBiggerFish]

...I would vote for the guy if he wins the nomination.  Bernie that is.

[Powder Miner]

I am pretty sure Bernie would gladly use Executive Orders if it meant getting his ideals through. Socialism doesn't exactly work off of lowering govt power.

[TheBiggerFish]

*shrug*

[Bauglir]

Feh. I'm all for arguing political philosophy, but I'm not willing to endorse a candidate who prioritizes it over national economic suicide. If you construct a system that keeps the government running unless actively shut down by Congress, instead of one that requires constant legislative action just to keep going, then sure.

I mean, if we could get an Amendment in that reads, "In a year in which a Federal agency is not funded or a Federal financial obligation is not addressed in a passed budget, the previous year's funding toward that agency or obligation will be applied. In no case will this be held to require the Government to overpay on a financial obligation. For each such agency or obligation, Congress may pass a bill to deny that agency's or obligation's funding through this Amendment for the coming year. One such bill may apply to multiple agencies and/or obligations." that'd go a long fucking way. Get somebody who knows more about economics than Bauglir to rewrite the "financial obligation" bit and throw in a clause to deal with stuff like the debt ceiling that isn't technically covered, I suppose.

EDIT: The obligations bit is supposed to cover things like regular payments of foreign aid, money given to States for their programs, and the like. All the money the Federal government pays out to keep things running. Bringing things to a screeching halt shouldn't be a bargaining chip, it should be something that can't happen unless somebody doesn't need bargaining chips anymore.

[TheBiggerFish]

That sounds like a very good idea.
Why did you just talk in the third person...?