4 ms·

Unfortunately, my founded belief is that if a Democrat gets elected president, the gang of Republicans that shut down government will also act to stop any actio

by kefka 11y ago

Unfortunately, my founded belief is that if a Democrat gets elected president, the gang of Republicans that shut down government will also act to stop any action the D-President does. We've already seen this with Obama. It's not hard to see them doing more of the same.

enraged_camel 11y ago
Bernie may be a democratic socialist, but he has decades of experience bringing together both sides of the aisle to pass legislation. His opponents may not agree with him, but they respect him. In contrast, Hillary is pretty much universally hated among Republicans. In my opinion she has a much lower chance of getting anything done if elected.
- heimatau 11y ago
  What evidence do you have to support Bernie could bridge the gap better than Hillary? When they were both in the Senate they voted 93% similarly. In addition, Bernie is liberal/progressive (far left) and Hillary is more moderate/liberal. On the spectrum, Hillary's politics are closer to Repubs than Bernie is. And Hillary is essentially a Bill Clinton in ideology, which is someone who enact legislation that's a hybrid of dem/reb lib/consv ideologies.
harryh 11y ago
It's worth noting that any tax increase has to start as a bill in congress, so it wouldn't so much be Republicans stopping the action of a D-President as just not doing what he/she wants them to do. Which...sounds like how the system is supposed to work? Checks & balances and all...
- kefka 11y ago
  Well, it depends. The POTUS is the head of the executive branch. And as far as I understand it, can order anyone of that branch to do stuff. That's also how "executive orders" work: because the POTUS is their boss. It's also what Obama's doing to break the gridlock: make rules that you have to go to SCOTUS to solve, or pass bills that supersede them.
  - harryh 11y ago
    Sure, there are lots of things that can be done by executive orders. Changing tax rates, however, is not one of them.
    - kefka 11y ago
      But "Fees" are well within the POTUS purview. So, make "Fees" that are means-tested (charge exorbitant those whom are rich). They aren't considered taxes. They're 'something else' (bullshit, but that's what the courts say).
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > But "Fees" are well within the POTUS purview. No, they aren't. (Except to the extent that fees have been authorized by statute and the authority to adjust them given the executive in the statute, but that clearly isn't what you are referring to, since you are talking about arbitrarily introducing new fees.) The executive has very little independent (that is, not dependent on Congressional action) domestic policy authority.
      - harryh 11y ago
        What court ruling are you referring to that says that POTUS can unilaterally impose fees of this kind without the consent of congress?
dangoor 11y ago
Indeed, unless enough people get annoyed at the situation and vote for different Congresspeople over the next couple of elections. Might require fixing gerrymandering first though
- pc86 11y ago
  "Congresspeople" has got to be the most ridiculous, awkward word in use today. Member of Congress is must better and is still 100% gender neutral if that's what your aim is. Both members of the House and Senate can be referred to as your representative (small 'r') in Congress.
  - LyndsySimon 11y ago
    I recently joined a startup in the political/advocacy arena, and the word I've been using is "legislator".
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Unfortunately, my founded belief is that if a Democrat gets elected president, the gang of Republicans that shut down government will also act to stop any action the D-President does. Which is a good reason for people voting for a candidate for President not to ignore the other races on the ballot, and a good reason for people who care about the policies embraced by their favorite Presidential candidate to not only advocate for that candidate, but advocate for down-ballot races as well. (And this applies just as much to any other candidate, of either party, as it does to Sanders.)

by kefka 11y ago

enraged_camel 11y ago

Bernie may be a democratic socialist, but he has decades of experience bringing together both sides of the aisle to pass legislation. His opponents may not agree with him, but they respect him. In contrast, Hillary is pretty much universally hated among Republicans. In my opinion she has a much lower chance of getting anything done if elected.

heimatau 11y ago
What evidence do you have to support Bernie could bridge the gap better than Hillary? When they were both in the Senate they voted 93% similarly. In addition, Bernie is liberal/progressive (far left) and Hillary is more moderate/liberal. On the spectrum, Hillary's politics are closer to Repubs than Bernie is. And Hillary is essentially a Bill Clinton in ideology, which is someone who enact legislation that's a hybrid of dem/reb lib/consv ideologies.

harryh 11y ago

It's worth noting that any tax increase has to start as a bill in congress, so it wouldn't so much be Republicans stopping the action of a D-President as just not doing what he/she wants them to do. Which...sounds like how the system is supposed to work? Checks & balances and all...

kefka 11y ago
Well, it depends. The POTUS is the head of the executive branch. And as far as I understand it, can order anyone of that branch to do stuff. That's also how "executive orders" work: because the POTUS is their boss. It's also what Obama's doing to break the gridlock: make rules that you have to go to SCOTUS to solve, or pass bills that supersede them.
- harryh 11y ago
  Sure, there are lots of things that can be done by executive orders. Changing tax rates, however, is not one of them.
  - kefka 11y ago
    But "Fees" are well within the POTUS purview. So, make "Fees" that are means-tested (charge exorbitant those whom are rich). They aren't considered taxes. They're 'something else' (bullshit, but that's what the courts say).
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > But "Fees" are well within the POTUS purview. No, they aren't. (Except to the extent that fees have been authorized by statute and the authority to adjust them given the executive in the statute, but that clearly isn't what you are referring to, since you are talking about arbitrarily introducing new fees.) The executive has very little independent (that is, not dependent on Congressional action) domestic policy authority.
    - harryh 11y ago
      What court ruling are you referring to that says that POTUS can unilaterally impose fees of this kind without the consent of congress?

dangoor 11y ago

Indeed, unless enough people get annoyed at the situation and vote for different Congresspeople over the next couple of elections. Might require fixing gerrymandering first though

pc86 11y ago
"Congresspeople" has got to be the most ridiculous, awkward word in use today. Member of Congress is must better and is still 100% gender neutral if that's what your aim is. Both members of the House and Senate can be referred to as your representative (small 'r') in Congress.
- LyndsySimon 11y ago
  I recently joined a startup in the political/advocacy arena, and the word I've been using is "legislator".

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Unfortunately, my founded belief is that if a Democrat gets elected president, the gang of Republicans that shut down government will also act to stop any action the D-President does. Which is a good reason for people voting for a candidate for President not to ignore the other races on the ballot, and a good reason for people who care about the policies embraced by their favorite Presidential candidate to not only advocate for that candidate, but advocate for down-ballot races as well. (And this applies just as much to any other candidate, of either party, as it does to Sanders.)