Madness

[Berserker]

You sign a deal, then when you don't get your way, you move to reneg on the deal.

Messenger: This is blasphemy! This is madness!
King Leonidas: Madness...?
King Leonidas: This is the United States Congress!
[Kicks the messenger down the well]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12 ... t-sighted/

[MorGrendel]

Don't know. It was just a stall tactic anyway.

Obama says no rise in the debt without change, congress agrees and says the American people desire cuts, and the people stop hating their politicans for a cycle. So they pass a bill of change, invent a supercommitte of photographic people, and Obama signs it. Mind you the bill says we need to increase the Debt Limit by 400 billion, and congress can request an additional 500 billion if necessary, and the president (Obama) may request a further increase of up to 1.5 Trillion.

Nothing changed. We continue to sell out the futures of those that follow us.

[Berserker]

Obama is not the one that needs to pass laws. The president is the executive branch. He gets to spend the money allocated by Congress. Beyond that all he can do is bitch and moan and hope someone listens to his requests. Congress has all the power in this instance, and the only power to do anything about the debt. As they have so often said, they hold the purse strings.

Stall tactic or not, a deal was reached through which 1 trillion will be cut over 10 years (500 defense, 500 discretionary). It's not much at all, but it's something. Particularly since it's such a small amount, I now find it soooo hypocritical that the republican party is trying to back away from this deal that they signed (sorry to pick on them, but the democrats have not to my knowledge tried to get out of the deal).

[MorGrendel]

Sure, I believe you have a valid point. I'm saying I suspect they never intended this to work, and that this was the plan all along.

Obama shares the blame because he did not veto the bill. He did not raise attention to the provision of the bill that add 2.5 trillion to the Debt Limit they are saying they will reduce by 1 trillion. Heck, maybe they were going to actually try to cut spending, but left room to tell the Industrial Military Complex or Medicare - "Sorry, we didn't mean it. Here is your money back."

I doubt he "bitched and moaned" when the bill gave the president a blank check for 1.5 trillion, and it didn't say on what he must spend it on, so of course he signs it. Moreover, and I'm not sure how this works exactly, but monies that congress does not direct specify (there is a word here I'm forgetting, maybe discretionary spending) the Executive branch can allocate wherever. It's how presidents pay for projects and maintain power.

You can say its all congress, but that's why there are separation of powers, to keep one branch from screwing it all up.

[Berserker]

Obama shares the blame because he did not veto the bill. He did not raise attention to the provision of the bill that add 2.5 trillion to the Debt Limit they are saying they will reduce by 1 trillion. Heck, maybe they were going to actually try to cut spending, but left room to tell the Industrial Military Complex or Medicare - "Sorry, we didn't mean it. Here is your money back."

If he had vetoed this bill, the government would have shut down and our credit would have plummeted. That was not an option at the time. The deal was a compromise. It was the best he could hope for at the time. What do you think they would have done if he had vetoed that bill? They probably would have tried to impeach him for messing with the good credit of the United States. It is not realistic to expect that he veto that bill with a congress that divided without anything gain for it!

Moreover, and I'm not sure how this works exactly, but monies that congress does not direct specify (there is a word here I'm forgetting, maybe discretionary spending) the Executive branch can allocate wherever. It's how presidents pay for projects and maintain power.

Well yes, the president has the power to spend the money allocated to him. However, all this money that he can spend has to be made law and appropriated by Congress. He cannot get any money on his own without 218 votes from the house, and 60 votes from the senate. He can only recommend what he would like to Congress.

It is ultimately the responsability of Congress to manage the money.

[Berserker]

I just thought of a caveat to that. The one way I can think that the president can force spending is by going to war without Congress's approval. Of course, he can only do this for a few weeks before Congress can step in and stop the war should they choose to. And of course, Congress can choose to approve the war and not pay for it anyway..

[MorGrendel]

I concede the point. Congress enacts budgets, and politicians politic.

However, to say it is more one party than another ignores and whitewashes the fact that the bill that created the supercommitee to cut 1.2 trillion also gave the president 1.2-1.5 trillion to spend. Coincidence? Democrats happy, they don't have to actually cut any spending. But the Republicans are just as in they get roughly 900 billion. Why the discreptancy? Because, they knew they were going to fight for the 600 billion all along (as your article points out) to "soften the blow", because it always makes good political sense for republicans to fight for National Defense. 900 billion plus 600 billion equals 1.5 trillion. Conincidence? Really they don't even try to hide this stuff.

So as I said before, this was always the plan, and just in case any cuts did happen, both parties purses were prepared. I never expected the supercommittee to work.

[MorGrendel]

I just thought of a caveat to that. The one way I can think that the president can force spending is by going to war without Congress's approval. Of course, he can only do this for a few weeks before Congress can step in and stop the war should they choose to. And of course, Congress can choose to approve the war and not pay for it anyway..

President can not declare war. However, he may send troops as a reaction to UN sanctions. Very bad in my opinion.

[Berserker]

Yeah, this whole war powers is a whole can of worms. And then when you involve UN (which without the US would be nothing), it gets that much more complicated. I wish that wars would be clearly stated. We're either at war, or we're not. None of this "boots were not actually touching the ground, we just dropped bombs on their heads", therefore we are not at war crap.

[Fritz]

You want madness. Have a closer look at this year's defense appropriations bill. There's a little section in there that makes the military responsible for investigating and conducting arrests in terrorism cases...on American soil...and the person would be subject to military law even if a US citizen. Never mind the very very serious civil liberties issues in there. The simple fact is that's the FBI's job and they've been doing just fine. The military is in no way equipped to conduct such investigations.

[MorGrendel]

Yup. I can't believe there is no talk of it.

[Fritz]

Yup. I can't believe there is no talk of it.

There's plenty of talk. Daily show covered it. I've seen newspapers covering it. Plenty of blogs have taken note. I've even seen stuff on CBS news' website (although we don't get them on TV here, so I have no idea if it made it on air). The thing is, the big three cable news channels haven't said a damned thing, so therefore it doesn't exist. Just goes to show how much power they wield.

[Titus]

I just thought of a caveat to that. The one way I can think that the president can force spending is by going to war without Congress's approval. Of course, he can only do this for a few weeks before Congress can step in and stop the war should they choose to. And of course, Congress can choose to approve the war and not pay for it anyway..

President can not declare war. However, he may send troops as a reaction to UN sanctions. Very bad in my opinion.

After I read this, the first quote made by Bezerker is even more true. The president is in control of the military, completely. He can do whatever he wants with it, as long as it is in defending the national security of our nation. So technically, if he thought invading Somalia, to get rid of the pirates, was a good idea, he could do it. (This is just a random example.) This article from the justice department summarizes the justice departments rulings and views on the matter, and if you actually read it shows pretty clearly what I am talking about.

P.S. I feel so weird actually having something to contribute to this board section other than a smart ass comment.

[MorGrendel]

That's just your brain working, I'm sure it will pass.
Thanks for posting.