3 ms·
> if the government were responsible effectively I’m not sure I’ve ever seen any part of the government respond effectively to anything, to the point of it bei
by sethammons 7y ago
> if the government were responsible effectively
I’m not sure I’ve ever seen any part of the government respond effectively to anything, to the point of it being an oxymoron. I also fail to believe that the president has much power over anything related. In a state of emergency, the president can get more powers. I am unaware of any that would help. He can imprison, disable services, turn off the Internet, sanction, all sticks and no carrots. I think our president is an ass, but I think it is silly to think “if but for him, our government wouldn’t be hamstrung.”
Edit: clarification on my first post: I was not claiming toilet paper as protective or emergency supplies, but as an example that even trifling things can’t be secured. Let alone things that are actually important such as masks or food.
- danaris 7y agoWell, first of all, I disagree vehemently with your premise (that government, as a concept, is incapable of responding effectively to a crisis). But that's another discussion for another day. As far as specific powers the President has, there's one that's already been talked about quite a bit—the Defense Production Act. As I understand it, this grants the power to compel manufacturing companies to retool to produce what's needed in a time of crisis, and to take control of logistics to see them routed in an efficient manner to where they are most needed. As a matter of fact, Trump has already used this to order GM to produce ventilators (I think? maybe it was masks?). As far as the logistics side goes, though, he's been using it solely to punish states whose governors don't lick his boots and reward those who do (eg, seizing shipments of protective equipment arriving at the port in NYC, sending them to FL instead).