5 ms·

What? We constantly have this embarrassing song and dance where the government faces a shutdown because they can't pass a budget, and they literally can't do th

What? We constantly have this embarrassing song and dance where the government faces a shutdown because they can't pass a budget, and they literally can't do their job.

Alupis 2y ago
> We constantly have this embarrassing song and dance where the government faces a shutdown because they can't pass a budget, and they literally can't do their job It's congress' job to write a budget, and it's the president's job to accept or veto it, after-which it's congresses job to amend or override the veto. The dance you're referring to is all posturing to compel one of the sides of that equation to compromise. In the end, they always compromise. To be clear - it is not congress' job to write a budget the president will accept. Congress is a separate branch of government and is as-powerful as the president. This process was designed to compel the two branches to compromise with each other - and it works (admittedly after a dog and pony show). "Shutting down the government" is a stunt designed to get people riled up - and it apparently works.
- JadeNB 2y ago
  But "works as designed" isn't the end of argument; things can be working exactly as the founding fathers expected (though only Scalia, with his powers of divination, could tell us for sure what they would think of today's world), and it can still be a bad thing. You advocate for better civics classes, but better classes would teach people to question things and act for the changes they see needed in today's world, not to accept a historically frozen government.
  - Alupis 2y ago
    The disconnect with reality is people often find themselves inside "information bubbles" where it feels like everyone thinks the same policies need to be enacted. Then they are dumbfounded when the policy doesn't actually get passed. When this happens, it's easy to fall into the propaganda and believe "the other side" is actively trying to subvert the country/constitution and destroy everything. Reality is there is not consensus for those policies. It's that simple. I promise you, there aren't any congress critters that are actually trying to destroy the country. They are each doing what they believe is best, and what they were elected to do... even if personally we don't favor those viewpoints.
    - CamperBob2 2y ago
      I promise you, there aren't any congress critters that are actually trying to destroy the country. Even the ones who spend July 4 in Moscow, actively support insurrection, and put their hands on the Constitution while swearing to uphold the Bible? The system wasn't designed to tolerate an entire party of saboteurs.
      - Alupis 2y ago
        Can we lay down the propaganda for a minute and actually debate using our brains? This ridiculous propaganda is super exhausting and very unstimulating.
        CamperBob2 2y ago
        I've been warned multiple times against participating in flamewars on HN, so I'll pass, thanks. Civil discourse has effectively been rendered impossible by the partisans in Congress and elsewhere that I'm referring to.
        Alupis 2y ago
        > Civil discourse has effectively been rendered impossible by the people I'm referring to > The system wasn't designed to tolerate an entire party of saboteurs. I'm missing something here, because it seems you are the flame war you speak ill of, and when I asked you to tone down the rhetoric you throw your hands up and say you're not going to participate in said flame war. You are right though - it is impossible to have a productive conversation when one person is determined to only believe their flavor of propaganda and not find any common ground. I said it elsewhere in thread: "Sit down with a friend that has the opposite political viewpoints and discuss some hard issues for an hour. There's a 0% chance the two sides don't find common ground..."
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - 2y ago
  - jancsika 2y ago
    > But "works as designed" isn't the end of argument; things can be working exactly as the founding fathers expected (though only Scalia, with his powers of divination, could tell us for sure what they would think of today's world), and it can still be a bad thing. But first things first-- one ought to have an overview of the specification for the form of government, why it was designed that way, and how it's been implemented over the past 200 years. The OP who saw gridlock as an unexpected and undesirable attribute of the federal budget process appears to not yet possess this knowledge. I'd say knowing things is a recommended dependency for questioning them. Otherwise the changes you think you want to see might as well be chosen by a random number generator. (But then at least random() isn't subject to filter bubbles!)
  - pdonis 2y ago
    > act for the changes they see needed in today's world The Constitution provides a process for amending it, and that process has been used twenty-seven times. That is the proper process for "acting for changes" if you think they are needed.
    - JadeNB 2y ago
      > The Constitution provides a process for amending it, and that process has been used twenty-seven times. That is the proper process for "acting for changes" if you think they are needed. That is the process for amending the Constitution, which neither is, nor should be, the only way to effect change. It is surely a ludicrous claim that our system of government has changed only 27 times. I doubt anyone even believes that the amendments record the 27 most consequential changes! Further, there is absolutely no way that I, or any individual (including any individual in government), can get a Constitutional amendment passed alone, so either there are steps between individual action and amending the Constitution, or there might as well not be an amendment process.
      - pdonis 2y ago
        > amending the Constitution, which neither is, nor should be, the only way to effect change Sure, if you can "effect change" by following the processes described in the Constitution as it is, you don't have to amend it. But my point is that much, if not most, of what the US government currently does is not following the processes described in the Constitution as it is--those are just being ignored, and nobody even talks about having to amend the Constitution to, for example, allow Congress to delegate legislative power to Executive branch agencies.
- ProfessorLayton 2y ago
  >"Shutting down the government" is a stunt designed to get people riled up Is it really posturing if the government actually shuts down and workers get furloughed as has happened in recent memory? >To be clear - it is not congress' job to write a budget the president will accept. Congress could certainly write a budget the president has to accept, but of course everything these days is done along party lines.
  - Alupis 2y ago
    When they put caution tape around public parks and forests where no government employees were stationed anyway - you know it's all for show.
- lenerdenator 2y ago
  You're forgetting one little detail in this entire argument: One side of the chamber has complete contempt for the idea of an administrative state. Not being able to pass a budget and shutting the whole thing down would be great in their minds. Well, they think so, at least. My family's got a few of those people who would probably feel differently once the EPA stops being able to regulate the emissions of the coal-fired power plant that's upwind of their $600k+ home. But until that actually happens it gives one side of the chamber a "dysfunctional government entity enforcing job-killing regulations" to rage against.
  - pdonis 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - lenerdenator 2y ago
      Congress and the Constitution give wide latitude to the executive branch to administer laws. Furthermore, this is a bad faith argument: there is no administrative state that these people would agree with when it comes to regulations that causes them to earn less money. None. There's a belief that any function provided by the administrative state can be resolved with markets. If you can't participate in those markets, that's on you. And by "those markets", I mean things like clean environmental resources (water, air, etc.), food, medicine, safety, and housing of a habitable standard. Now, on moral issues, that's a different story...
      - pdonis 2y ago
        > Congress and the Constitution give wide latitude to the executive branch to administer laws. Depends on what you mean by "wide latitude". Article II says that the President shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed. But it doesn't say the President or any Executive branch official can make laws. And most of what Executive branch agencies do in our current administrative state is making laws. Sure, they're called "regulations" and everybody waves their hands and says Congress makes "laws" that give guidelines on how the "regulations" are written, but that's just playing with words. You can be fined or sent to jail for violating the "regulations", and that makes them laws. Which means they are supposed to be passed by Congress using the process given in the Constitution. > this is a bad faith argument I'm not sure what argument you are talking about here, but it's not mine. My argument is simply that the current administrative state is unconstitutional. That is not the same as saying our current administrative state makes bad laws--in fact I do think many of the laws it makes are bad, but that's not the argument I'm making here. The argument I'm making is that if as a democratic society we decide that the best way for our government to run is as an administrative state like the one we have now, we need to amend the Constitution to allow that. Otherwise we do not have a rule of law, because we're ignoring what the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, says. Claiming that we need these regulations because safety, environment, blah blah blah does not change that.

What? We constantly have this embarrassing song and dance where the government faces a shutdown because they can't pass a budget, and they literally can't do their job.

Alupis 2y ago

> We constantly have this embarrassing song and dance where the government faces a shutdown because they can't pass a budget, and they literally can't do their job It's congress' job to write a budget, and it's the president's job to accept or veto it, after-which it's congresses job to amend or override the veto. The dance you're referring to is all posturing to compel one of the sides of that equation to compromise. In the end, they always compromise. To be clear - it is not congress' job to write a budget the president will accept. Congress is a separate branch of government and is as-powerful as the president. This process was designed to compel the two branches to compromise with each other - and it works (admittedly after a dog and pony show). "Shutting down the government" is a stunt designed to get people riled up - and it apparently works.

JadeNB 2y ago
But "works as designed" isn't the end of argument; things can be working exactly as the founding fathers expected (though only Scalia, with his powers of divination, could tell us for sure what they would think of today's world), and it can still be a bad thing. You advocate for better civics classes, but better classes would teach people to question things and act for the changes they see needed in today's world, not to accept a historically frozen government.
- Alupis 2y ago
  The disconnect with reality is people often find themselves inside "information bubbles" where it feels like everyone thinks the same policies need to be enacted. Then they are dumbfounded when the policy doesn't actually get passed. When this happens, it's easy to fall into the propaganda and believe "the other side" is actively trying to subvert the country/constitution and destroy everything. Reality is there is not consensus for those policies. It's that simple. I promise you, there aren't any congress critters that are actually trying to destroy the country. They are each doing what they believe is best, and what they were elected to do... even if personally we don't favor those viewpoints.
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    I promise you, there aren't any congress critters that are actually trying to destroy the country. Even the ones who spend July 4 in Moscow, actively support insurrection, and put their hands on the Constitution while swearing to uphold the Bible? The system wasn't designed to tolerate an entire party of saboteurs.
    - Alupis 2y ago
      Can we lay down the propaganda for a minute and actually debate using our brains? This ridiculous propaganda is super exhausting and very unstimulating.
      - CamperBob2 2y ago
        I've been warned multiple times against participating in flamewars on HN, so I'll pass, thanks. Civil discourse has effectively been rendered impossible by the partisans in Congress and elsewhere that I'm referring to.
        Alupis 2y ago
        > Civil discourse has effectively been rendered impossible by the people I'm referring to > The system wasn't designed to tolerate an entire party of saboteurs. I'm missing something here, because it seems you are the flame war you speak ill of, and when I asked you to tone down the rhetoric you throw your hands up and say you're not going to participate in said flame war. You are right though - it is impossible to have a productive conversation when one person is determined to only believe their flavor of propaganda and not find any common ground. I said it elsewhere in thread: "Sit down with a friend that has the opposite political viewpoints and discuss some hard issues for an hour. There's a 0% chance the two sides don't find common ground..."
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - 2y ago
- jancsika 2y ago
  > But "works as designed" isn't the end of argument; things can be working exactly as the founding fathers expected (though only Scalia, with his powers of divination, could tell us for sure what they would think of today's world), and it can still be a bad thing. But first things first-- one ought to have an overview of the specification for the form of government, why it was designed that way, and how it's been implemented over the past 200 years. The OP who saw gridlock as an unexpected and undesirable attribute of the federal budget process appears to not yet possess this knowledge. I'd say knowing things is a recommended dependency for questioning them. Otherwise the changes you think you want to see might as well be chosen by a random number generator. (But then at least random() isn't subject to filter bubbles!)
- pdonis 2y ago
  > act for the changes they see needed in today's world The Constitution provides a process for amending it, and that process has been used twenty-seven times. That is the proper process for "acting for changes" if you think they are needed.
  - JadeNB 2y ago
    > The Constitution provides a process for amending it, and that process has been used twenty-seven times. That is the proper process for "acting for changes" if you think they are needed. That is the process for amending the Constitution, which neither is, nor should be, the only way to effect change. It is surely a ludicrous claim that our system of government has changed only 27 times. I doubt anyone even believes that the amendments record the 27 most consequential changes! Further, there is absolutely no way that I, or any individual (including any individual in government), can get a Constitutional amendment passed alone, so either there are steps between individual action and amending the Constitution, or there might as well not be an amendment process.
    - pdonis 2y ago
      > amending the Constitution, which neither is, nor should be, the only way to effect change Sure, if you can "effect change" by following the processes described in the Constitution as it is, you don't have to amend it. But my point is that much, if not most, of what the US government currently does is not following the processes described in the Constitution as it is--those are just being ignored, and nobody even talks about having to amend the Constitution to, for example, allow Congress to delegate legislative power to Executive branch agencies.
ProfessorLayton 2y ago
>"Shutting down the government" is a stunt designed to get people riled up Is it really posturing if the government actually shuts down and workers get furloughed as has happened in recent memory? >To be clear - it is not congress' job to write a budget the president will accept. Congress could certainly write a budget the president has to accept, but of course everything these days is done along party lines.
- Alupis 2y ago
  When they put caution tape around public parks and forests where no government employees were stationed anyway - you know it's all for show.
lenerdenator 2y ago
You're forgetting one little detail in this entire argument: One side of the chamber has complete contempt for the idea of an administrative state. Not being able to pass a budget and shutting the whole thing down would be great in their minds. Well, they think so, at least. My family's got a few of those people who would probably feel differently once the EPA stops being able to regulate the emissions of the coal-fired power plant that's upwind of their $600k+ home. But until that actually happens it gives one side of the chamber a "dysfunctional government entity enforcing job-killing regulations" to rage against.
- pdonis 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - lenerdenator 2y ago
    Congress and the Constitution give wide latitude to the executive branch to administer laws. Furthermore, this is a bad faith argument: there is no administrative state that these people would agree with when it comes to regulations that causes them to earn less money. None. There's a belief that any function provided by the administrative state can be resolved with markets. If you can't participate in those markets, that's on you. And by "those markets", I mean things like clean environmental resources (water, air, etc.), food, medicine, safety, and housing of a habitable standard. Now, on moral issues, that's a different story...
    - pdonis 2y ago
      > Congress and the Constitution give wide latitude to the executive branch to administer laws. Depends on what you mean by "wide latitude". Article II says that the President shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed. But it doesn't say the President or any Executive branch official can make laws. And most of what Executive branch agencies do in our current administrative state is making laws. Sure, they're called "regulations" and everybody waves their hands and says Congress makes "laws" that give guidelines on how the "regulations" are written, but that's just playing with words. You can be fined or sent to jail for violating the "regulations", and that makes them laws. Which means they are supposed to be passed by Congress using the process given in the Constitution. > this is a bad faith argument I'm not sure what argument you are talking about here, but it's not mine. My argument is simply that the current administrative state is unconstitutional. That is not the same as saying our current administrative state makes bad laws--in fact I do think many of the laws it makes are bad, but that's not the argument I'm making here. The argument I'm making is that if as a democratic society we decide that the best way for our government to run is as an administrative state like the one we have now, we need to amend the Constitution to allow that. Otherwise we do not have a rule of law, because we're ignoring what the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, says. Claiming that we need these regulations because safety, environment, blah blah blah does not change that.