5 ms·

Foreign policy is under the control of the executive branch. The President can order a pause on foreign aid to allow the new administration to review all forei

Foreign policy is under the control of the executive branch. The President can order a pause on foreign aid to allow the new administration to review all foreign aid. Once those orders were ignored, the administration had to take more drastic steps (as SOS Rubio pointed out).

dralley 2y ago
No, the President cannot just unilaterally ignore Congressional spending requirements just because "the executive controls foreign policy". That's what got him impeached the first time. They're also not "pausing" shit, they're cancelling contracts effective immediately & locking up the buildings. Elon tweeted a picture of the sign being removed from the front of the building. You're being dishonest about what is going on.
- jpadkins 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - LastTrain 2y ago
    Absolutely the POTUS cannot just cancel contracts he thinks are a waste of taxpayer money. Some, not all. The President cannot ignore laws passed by Congress unless he gets agreement, by way of a court ruling, that the law is unconstitutional. Now if you are saying he can ignore all that without consequences because people bend over and let him, yes that can happen if we are all very stupid.
    - jpadkins 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - LastTrain 2y ago
        Are we really going to do this? You going to grind people down making them demonstrate the sky is blue to your satisfaction? We can all point to multiple EOs in the last weeks that are clearly, or at least arguably, not under the authority of the POTUS. That is what the fuss is all about, no? If you can't agree to that then there is no point in going on because you are being dishonest. In any case, once a court is involved (case clear or not) you follow court procedures to conclusion. You know, the whole reason our POTUS isn't in jail right now.
        jpadkins 2y ago
        Your statements are correct and I generally agree. Let the courts sort it out. I was replying to this statement "USAID funding is controlled by Congress. Trump cannot just order them to redirect funds on a whim." which is clearly false.
  - ModernMech 2y ago
    > Do you really believe that the POTUS cannot cancel contracts he feels are a waste of taxpayer money (and that position will stand up in court)? Let's assume you're right. There's a video of a farmer going around who had invested some money in an IRA project (passed under Biden) and he's complaining that the money he is contractually obliged is being held up by Trump. So assuming Trump had the right to cancel this contract and it will hold up in court, what does that do for the government's ability to stimulate economic activity by passing legislation? How can people trust a law if it can become null and void upon the next admin coming in? The farmer in question says the only reason he engaged in this activity was because he determined in the contract that the money was guaranteed. Meaning that although he made sure he wouldn't be in this situation, he's nonetheless in it because of POTUS, making the contract he signed with the federal government basically worthless. So in the future, if the government needs to stimulate production of a certain crop through economic incentives, are farmers going to listen, knowing that the money they will need to depend on in 4 years may or may not exist depending who wins the next election? How can we make long term plans as a country this way? What method will the government turn to if can't use statutory incentives to stimulate economic activity?
    - jpadkins 2y ago
      > How can people trust a law if it can become null and void upon the next admin coming in? The law is not null and void with the next admin. The law specifies the exec branch can determine who gets the grants and how much. So everyone is aware that a new admin may not give grants the same as the old admin. > he determined in the contract that the money was guaranteed. Then he was misled. There is no contract between the US and the grantee making a guarantee over a time period. Would you complain if a new Congress passed a new budget cutting this fund? Is that breaking a guarantee?? > making the contract he signed with the federal government basically worthless. You are not signing a contract with the federal government! You are getting a grant. very big difference > depend on in 4 years may or may not exist depending who wins the next election? It's even worse than that! Congressional elections are every 2 years. Everyone who gets federal money knows that money is dependent on their patronage, which could change every 2 years. That is why there is so much money and power in politics! $4T is a lot of money to allocate, so of course a lot of money is going to spent determining who controls the purse.
  - dralley 2y ago
    >Rubio assessed the agency, decided to keep 300 people and let go of the rest. With all due respect this is a complete joke. Rubio has been basically cut out of the process and is along for the ride. And no, the President can't unilaterally do that, and if they want to argue that they can, they need to have that proven out by the courts, instead of proclaiming that the executive branch is the arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional.
    - jpadkins 2y ago
      Do you have any facts to support your assertion? The executive order named Rubio as the interim admin. Rubio did a press interview stating that the agency went rogue and he fired all but 300 of them.

dralley 2y ago

No, the President cannot just unilaterally ignore Congressional spending requirements just because "the executive controls foreign policy". That's what got him impeached the first time. They're also not "pausing" shit, they're cancelling contracts effective immediately & locking up the buildings. Elon tweeted a picture of the sign being removed from the front of the building. You're being dishonest about what is going on.

jpadkins 2y ago
[flagged]
- LastTrain 2y ago
  Absolutely the POTUS cannot just cancel contracts he thinks are a waste of taxpayer money. Some, not all. The President cannot ignore laws passed by Congress unless he gets agreement, by way of a court ruling, that the law is unconstitutional. Now if you are saying he can ignore all that without consequences because people bend over and let him, yes that can happen if we are all very stupid.
  - jpadkins 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - LastTrain 2y ago
      Are we really going to do this? You going to grind people down making them demonstrate the sky is blue to your satisfaction? We can all point to multiple EOs in the last weeks that are clearly, or at least arguably, not under the authority of the POTUS. That is what the fuss is all about, no? If you can't agree to that then there is no point in going on because you are being dishonest. In any case, once a court is involved (case clear or not) you follow court procedures to conclusion. You know, the whole reason our POTUS isn't in jail right now.
      - jpadkins 2y ago
        Your statements are correct and I generally agree. Let the courts sort it out. I was replying to this statement "USAID funding is controlled by Congress. Trump cannot just order them to redirect funds on a whim." which is clearly false.
- ModernMech 2y ago
  > Do you really believe that the POTUS cannot cancel contracts he feels are a waste of taxpayer money (and that position will stand up in court)? Let's assume you're right. There's a video of a farmer going around who had invested some money in an IRA project (passed under Biden) and he's complaining that the money he is contractually obliged is being held up by Trump. So assuming Trump had the right to cancel this contract and it will hold up in court, what does that do for the government's ability to stimulate economic activity by passing legislation? How can people trust a law if it can become null and void upon the next admin coming in? The farmer in question says the only reason he engaged in this activity was because he determined in the contract that the money was guaranteed. Meaning that although he made sure he wouldn't be in this situation, he's nonetheless in it because of POTUS, making the contract he signed with the federal government basically worthless. So in the future, if the government needs to stimulate production of a certain crop through economic incentives, are farmers going to listen, knowing that the money they will need to depend on in 4 years may or may not exist depending who wins the next election? How can we make long term plans as a country this way? What method will the government turn to if can't use statutory incentives to stimulate economic activity?
  - jpadkins 2y ago
    > How can people trust a law if it can become null and void upon the next admin coming in? The law is not null and void with the next admin. The law specifies the exec branch can determine who gets the grants and how much. So everyone is aware that a new admin may not give grants the same as the old admin. > he determined in the contract that the money was guaranteed. Then he was misled. There is no contract between the US and the grantee making a guarantee over a time period. Would you complain if a new Congress passed a new budget cutting this fund? Is that breaking a guarantee?? > making the contract he signed with the federal government basically worthless. You are not signing a contract with the federal government! You are getting a grant. very big difference > depend on in 4 years may or may not exist depending who wins the next election? It's even worse than that! Congressional elections are every 2 years. Everyone who gets federal money knows that money is dependent on their patronage, which could change every 2 years. That is why there is so much money and power in politics! $4T is a lot of money to allocate, so of course a lot of money is going to spent determining who controls the purse.
- dralley 2y ago
  >Rubio assessed the agency, decided to keep 300 people and let go of the rest. With all due respect this is a complete joke. Rubio has been basically cut out of the process and is along for the ride. And no, the President can't unilaterally do that, and if they want to argue that they can, they need to have that proven out by the courts, instead of proclaiming that the executive branch is the arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional.
  - jpadkins 2y ago
    Do you have any facts to support your assertion? The executive order named Rubio as the interim admin. Rubio did a press interview stating that the agency went rogue and he fired all but 300 of them.