3 ms·

Congress could have ended the Iraq War, the Afghan War, reined in domestic spying, broken up the banks, passed serious financial and bankruptcy reforms after th

Congress could have ended the Iraq War, the Afghan War, reined in domestic spying, broken up the banks, passed serious financial and bankruptcy reforms after the '08 crisis or even repealed the ACA. They did exactly none of these things. Why is that, since they have so much power? Congress has power theoretically, on paper. So does the Monarch in the UK or the National People's Congress or, historically, the Supreme Soviet. But Congress these days rarely exercises real power. Congress is mostly a rubber stamp with some third-rate acting and drama. The Fed has real power. They started paying interest on reserves in the wake of the financial crisis, and seemed to have no explicit authority to do so. They also started buying much riskier assets than they had before, and also seemed to just so it. They did the various iterations of QE with no real guidance or oversight. And the Fed controls the money, the lifeblood of any organization. Without the money, Congress does nothing, the president does nothing. That's a lot of power that is frankly unmatched in the US government.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Congress could have ended the Iraq War, the Afghan War, reined in domestic spying, broken up the banks, passed serious financial and bankruptcy reforms after the '08 crisis or even repealed the ACA. They did exactly none of these things. Why is that, since they have so much power? Because a majority of Congress (or the supermajority necessary to override a Presidential veto, in the cases where the President was opposed) didn't want to. On the other hand, they authorized the Afghan War, and the Iraq War, and prevented the President from abandoning the detention facilities at Guatanamo Bay, etc., etc., etc. Them choosing to exercise powers in ways you don't like, and not choosing to exercise it in ways you do like, doesn't mean they don't have power, it means they have different priorities than you do. > And the Fed controls the money No, Congress controls the money. They choose to allow the Fed to exercise some part of that power on their behalf, because their is perceived to be political value in doing so, but the power is entirely Congress’s.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Congress could have ended the Iraq War, the Afghan War, reined in domestic spying, broken up the banks, passed serious financial and bankruptcy reforms after the '08 crisis or even repealed the ACA. They did exactly none of these things. Why is that, since they have so much power? Because a majority of Congress (or the supermajority necessary to override a Presidential veto, in the cases where the President was opposed) didn't want to. On the other hand, they authorized the Afghan War, and the Iraq War, and prevented the President from abandoning the detention facilities at Guatanamo Bay, etc., etc., etc. Them choosing to exercise powers in ways you don't like, and not choosing to exercise it in ways you do like, doesn't mean they don't have power, it means they have different priorities than you do. > And the Fed controls the money No, Congress controls the money. They choose to allow the Fed to exercise some part of that power on their behalf, because their is perceived to be political value in doing so, but the power is entirely Congress’s.