this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2024
190 points (100.0% liked)

politics

18073 readers
5716 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Classically, Congress held the power of the purse, able to both bar and require spending. This imposed a significant limit on Presidential power. With a bought court supporting him, Trump would have significant ability to essentially chart power as a king.

all 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] crossover 50 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

I wish we had a way to simulate a universe in which the GOP gets every single one of its policies implemented. Then let it run like a Sim City level. Just to see what a dumpster fire it would be.

[–] NeptuneOrbit 42 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)
[–] something_random_tho 30 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

The reason states have more powers than the federal government is to test different methods of government and see what works best, then apply those lessons everywhere.

Turns out the red states consistently wind up much worse than the blue states. But they're so brainwashed and poorly educated, they don't learn from observing better outcomes elsewhere.

[–] Stern 17 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The Kansas Experiment. What a glorious clusterfuck that was.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago

S&P downgraded its credit rating first from AA+ to AA in August 2014, due to a budget that analysts described as structurally unbalanced,[52] and again in February 2017 from AA to AA−.[53]

It bugs me that credit ratings follow the eBay review policy of "AAAAA+++++ excellent service!!!!!"

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago
[–] partial_accumen 4 points 3 weeks ago

Yep, always remember 'Brownbackistan'.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

Shudder I remember those dark days...I despise my state for letting that even come to pass. I remember voting for someone else instead of Brownback for this reason.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Read about the simulation games this researcher conducted with groups who score high on his authoritarian-type personality scale versus those who don’t: https://theauthoritarians.org

TLDR: When the world is run by right-wing authoritarians, it ends in famine and nuclear war.

[–] wide_eyed_stupid 2 points 3 weeks ago

Thank you. I downloaded the book!

Also: the last update on the site. R.i.p.

[–] samus12345 2 points 3 weeks ago

Check out Russia for something pretty close.

[–] Stern 39 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Ahh yes, Current Felon and Former President Donald Trump, well known for presiding over a fucking plague, wants to lower health spending. Astounding intellect.

[–] SkybreakerEngineer 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Being president when a plague happens isn't awful. Being president and responding to a plague like a Nurgle cultist, however, is.

[–] something_random_tho 4 points 3 weeks ago

If everyone would have just injected bleach then no one would have died from COVID.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

Tbf, if your goal was to increase profits for the wealthy, it's actually a brilliant idea.

[–] Burn_The_Right 34 points 3 weeks ago

Remember, every penny cut by a conservative is a penny kept by a conservative.

Taxes don't go down with conservative program cuts. They keep the money they cut from programs. All of it is routed to their pockets. All of it.

Conservatives are cancer.

[–] Sanctus 16 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I have some friends from Middle School who I talk to daily, they were never the brightest bulbs in the warehouse. So of course Noe they're Trumpers. I had the two of them read the entire Mandate for Leadership and discussed each point. They didn't like it, but didn't believe he'd do it if he won. Vote, you can't change these people's minds.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

didn’t believe he’d do it if he won

This has been an ongoing problem — if a Republican announces plans to do something sufficiently evil, people won't believe it because of how awful it is.

[–] samus12345 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

And once it happens it's okay regardless of how negatively it affects them as long as it owns the libs.

[–] someguy3 10 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

“I will use the president’s long-recognized Impoundment Power to squeeze the bloated federal bureaucracy for massive savings,” Trump said in a plan posted last year. “This will be in the form of tax reductions for you. This will help quickly to stop inflation and slash the deficit.”

That pledge could provoke a dramatic constitutional showdown, with vast consequences for how the government operates. If he returns to office, these efforts are likely to turn typically arcane debates over “impoundment” authority — or the president’s right to stop certain spending programs — into a major political flash point, as he seeks to accomplish via edict what he cannot pass through Congress.

...

Presidents since Thomas Jefferson have halted spending for programs approved by Congress. That typically has not proved controversial, because presidents have traditionally done so for routine managerial reasons or with specific statutory authorization, not to thwart the policy choices Congress made in appropriations laws.

But President Richard M. Nixon faced an uproar after he refused to spend money across a broad array of domestic programs, such as farm assistance and water grants. In 1969, working in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, the future Supreme Court chief justice William Rehnquist wrote a memo arguing that the president does not have unilateral authority to refuse to spend appropriated funds, while reserving the possibility of limited exceptions for foreign policy and other policy areas. Federal courts struck down Nixon’s impoundments as illegal, and Congress approved strict new limits on the power as part of post-Watergate government reforms in 1974.

During Trump’s first term, his allies grew increasingly frustrated with those limits.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago

Sounds like at least one oil company contributed to his request for a billion dollar bribe ....

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago

Convicted felon wants to continue to fuck the country up

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer 3 points 3 weeks ago

So the 2025 Enabling Act?

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod 3 points 3 weeks ago

Biden should buy some courts...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

This fucker trying to speedrun us to extinction so he and his buddies can make a buck.