$500B tax hit?

[Gmoney4WW]

No it doesn’t. Not sure what the answer is. We’ve spent decades watching our political leaders stick their heads in the sand while our debt explodes. We have a system where those in political leadership positions profit from the current system. To say they don’t care about consequences ten to twenty years down the line is an understatement.

Maybe Musk will start a corporation named Skynet, and it won't matter.

 

[astonmartin708]

I don’t hate checks and balances. In fact, I have been one of the harshest critics of legislating via EO’s. Others on this board seem to be perfectly fine with no “checks and balances” as long as their “guy” is the actor.

Relying on Congress to enact meaningful spending cuts is obviously problematic. They haven’t attempted any significant cuts in more than 3 decades despite soaring deficits. They are now far too dependent on government spending to enrich themselves and maintain power. I’m not arguing spending reform should be vested in solely in the Executive, but Congress as a whole needs to be taken out of that equation. I’m not sure how anyone who has paid attention to our fiscal plight over the past 25 years can argue against such an assertion. Without a drastic chance in how we spend money we are destined to a third world financial existence.

That does not mean you need a strong man in place to do it instead. You need to fix congress.

 

[astonmartin708]

Presidents did in fact refuse to spend funds allocated by Congress which they determined didn’t need to be spent. That is until 1974 when the Impoundment Control Act was passed. Should Presidents have complete control over how much allocated funds are ultimately spent…no. Given the acts of Congress, the flow of money in our political system to politicians, and our $2T a year deficits, we likely need some mechanism to control Congressional spending. Whatever that might be.

Worse case scenario isn’t the option of living in a poor constitutional republic. It’s the option of living in an economic system of hyper inflation where we lack the funds to care for our poor. Considering the number of Americans who rely on the federal government for their basics, it would get ugly very quickly

You make arguments that are used by people who want to consolidate power for their own benefit. Kings, dictators, etc... these are the same arguments that have been made against Democracy since before Caesar.

The worst case scenario is giving all of the power to a single or a very small group of individuals who answer to no one regardless if that society is wealthy enough to take care of its poor or not. Having no means of accountability for your leaders is the reason why many civil wars have been fought throughout history and its also why millions upon millions of people died when their new despotic leaders proved incompetent.

The congressional and judicial checks are the only thing keeping us from despotism. Regardless if they make us poorer, or less efficient, they must be respected. Anyone tries to subvert that is subverting the fundamental ideals of our Constitution and our Republic (no matter if they have good intentions or not)

 

[lawpoke87]

That does not mean you need a strong man in place to do it instead. You need to fix congress.

You’re not going to fix Congress until you stop them from profiting from their own spending. Which is problematic since they are the entity which would have to impose those restrictions on themselves. Something which will never happen. You talk about checks and balances but there is neither when it comes to Congressional spending and personal enrichment.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

You’re not going to fix Congress until you stop them from profiting from their own spending. Which is problematic since they are the entity which would have to impose those restrictions on themselves. Something which will never happen. You talk about checks and balances but there is neither when it comes to Congressional spending and personal enrichment.

That's a flaw in our government. Don't know how you can fix it. We would have to have an agency free of the executive office, and congressional influence. Somone like a Special Prosecutor, or a DOJ free from Executive influence, or a completely independent Supreme Court.

This agency would have to have power to enforce to extremes, people giving up their investments to enter congress more than they push now. And eliminate lobbyists all together. But forming an agency with this kind of power would be hard to do without corruption. Who would check them would be another issue.

This agency's cases would go through the courts with more of a straight line to the SC. The SC would have to check them on the cases they are allowed to put before them.

They would have to have the power to eliminate corporate support of candidates. This is an impossible Agency to create.

 

[drboobay]

That's a flaw in our government. Don't know how you can fix it. We would have to have an agency free of the executive office, and congressional influence. Somone like a Special Prosecutor, or a DOJ free from Executive influence, or a completely independent Supreme Court.

This agency would have to have power to enforce to extremes, people giving up their investments to enter congress more than they push now. And eliminate lobbyists all together. But forming an agency with this kind of power would be hard to do without corruption. Who would check them would be another issue.

This agency's cases would go through the courts with more of a straight line to the SC. The SC would have to check them on the cases they are allowed to put before them.

They would have to have the power to eliminate corporate support of candidates. This is an impossible Agency to create.

I think lawpoke's solution simply allows the executive to be freely corrupt in place of congress. That is much riskier because of the concentrated power.

 

[lawpoke87]

I think lawpoke's solution simply allows the executive to be freely corrupt in place of congress. That is much riskier because of the concentrated power.

I thought I was pretty clear in stating that I’m not sure how to fix the problem. I am fairly confident the people receiving huge amounts of money from the current system aren’t going to fix the same. Regardless of how bleak the country’s financial future appears

 

[astonmartin708]

You’re not going to fix Congress until you stop them from profiting from their own spending. Which is problematic since they are the entity which would have to impose those restrictions on themselves. Something which will never happen. You talk about checks and balances but there is neither when it comes to Congressional spending and personal enrichment.

Hail Caesar!!!!

Or ya know… stop voting for congressional candidates who don’t have any interest in fixing the problem. Maybe ask them about that in their next town hall. I will stop voting for them if you do. Let’s start the domino effect.

Make it a grassroots national issue. That Congress needs to get its crap together in terms of spending AND taking authority for their reductions in spending. It’s not the president’s right to do that job… and if Congress isn’t doing it then they need to be replaced.

 

[lawpoke87]

Hail Caesar!!!!

Or ya know… stop voting for congressional candidates who don’t have any interest in fixing the problem. Maybe ask them about that in their next town hall. I will stop voting for them if you do. Let’s start the domino effect.

Make it a grassroots national issue. That Congress needs to get its crap together in terms of spending AND taking authority for their reductions in spending. It’s not the president’s right to do that job… and if Congress isn’t doing it then they need to be replaced.

Everybody hates members of Congress except for their own. It’s been this way for decades. How many congressional candidates have run on a platform of change only to get caught up in the money and power. Answer….almost all. The system is broken. It’s one controlled by money and influence. Changing your Congressman isn’t going to change a damn thing. You’re going to need to change the system. Good luck there

 

[astonmartin708]

Everybody hates members of Congress except for their own. It’s been this way for decades. How many congressional candidates have run on a platform of change only to get caught up in the money and power. Answer….almost all. The system is broken. It’s one controlled by money and influence. Changing your Congressman isn’t going to change a damn thing. You’re going to need to change the system. Good luck there

I'm not willing to change the system by giving more authority to the executive branch. Just can't do it. It's too dangerous. I would prefer it to be dysfunctional and economically disastrous over malicious or despotic.

Also, I don't agree that you can't change things with the existing system. I think the message has to span across parties and states. Right now nearly every congressman parrots the position of their national party which is that the other side is the problem... instead of acknowledging that the parties themselves are the problem.

 

[aTUfan]

make EOs short term. After 3 months it goes away unless congress passes it.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

make EOs short term. After 3 months it goes away unless congress passes it.

You can't reassemble Departments like the Department of Education in 3 months like it never happened. You put people out of a job. Nobody will continue for 3 mo. without a job. It takes all the people who are experts away from the Department. Few people will sit around for 3 mo to see if congress passes a bill while they have no income. And those that do will cost the government because they will be on unemployment. The cost of reassembling a Department will cost an inordinate amount, not save money. The Department will suffer, and take years to get it back to functioning like it used to. Not to mention policies that are necessary will be on hold for 3 mo.

You can't just try things out in government for 3 mos. It's not like putting out a new product line, and realizing it is a failure a few months later. The agency I was talking about to ensure Congress was less corrupt would not work like I said when I was laying it out as a possibility. It was pie in the sky and I stated as such. But this suggestion is even more ridiculous, and you think it's a real suggestion.

There are some policies that would work better than tearing a dept apart, but most wouldn't work well. Silly idea with tons of reasons why this would make things worse. Just because things pop into your head doesn't make them a good idea. You don't even spend 5 minutes to think about the pro's & cons of utilizing your ideas. Or maybe you did, and couldn't comprehend the difficulties it would pose.

 

[aTUfan]

You can't reassemble Departments like the Department of Education in 3 months like it never happened. You put people out of a job. Nobody will continue for 3 mo. without a job. It takes all the people who are experts away from the Department. Few people will sit around for 3 mo to see if congress passes a bill while they have no income. And those that do will cost the government because they will be on unemployment. The cost of reassembling a Department will cost an inordinate amount, not save money. The Department will suffer, and take years to get it back to functioning like it used to. Not to mention policies that are necessary will be on hold for 3 mo.

You can't just try things out in government for 3 mos. It's not like putting out a new product line, and realizing it is a failure a few months later. The agency I was talking about to ensure Congress was less corrupt would not work like I said when I was laying it out as a possibility. It was pie in the sky and I stated as such. But this suggestion is even more ridiculous, and you think it's a real suggestion.

There are some policies that would work better than tearing a dept apart, but most wouldn't work well. Silly idea with tons of reasons why this would make things worse. Just because things pop into your head doesn't make them a good idea. You don't even spend 5 minutes to think about the pro's & cons of utilizing your ideas. Or maybe you did, and couldn't comprehend the difficulties it would pose.

if I said the sky was blue, you would somehow dispute my comment.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

if I said the sky was blue, you would somehow dispute my comment.

Glad you defended your post against the criticism, seeing as how you can't. Nice avoidance. Why do you think 90% of your posts get attacked, not just by me?