5 ms·

I don't think you realize how good your first link makes Obama look and how badly it supports your claims, did you even read it? Half that article is about cut

by dangus 1y ago

I don't think you realize how good your first link makes Obama look and how badly it supports your claims, did you even read it? Half that article is about cutting healthcare costs for the American people, which is a good thing that Republicans haven't had any results on since Nixon. The other half demonstrates very plainly that Obama worked with Congress to pass laws to streamline spending and cut out middlemen, and that's notable because DOGE completely circumvented congress who is supposed to be the sole possessor of the power of the purse. That part of the article pointed out that Obama cut the deficit by trillions, which of course Republicans have refused to do in the last few decades (with the Big Beautiful Bill and Tax Cut and Jobs Act both ballooning the deficit). The Clinton administration also worked with congress to implement its version of DOGE and had much more success: https://www.npr.org/2025/03/12/1237991516/planet-money-doge-government-size-rego https://www.npr.org/2025/03/12/1237991516/planet-money-doge-... Bringing up deportations was not relevant to this discussion nor the article.

mothballed 1y ago
>and that's notable because DOGE completely circumvented congress who is supposed to be the sole possessor of the power of the purse. Congress has the constitutional power of the purse but that refers specifically to raising and appropriating money[]. The executive has the power to actually go out and spend the appropriated money. Congress tried to usurp that power around the time of Nixon by stopping executive impoundment. But it's not clear if that's constitutional; it might be now under current SCOTUS interpretations but I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS reviews it and find that to be incorrect. Personally I think congress usurping power of impoundment is a bright and clear violation of checks and balances built into the constitution that requires two branches to approve of spending before it can actually get spent. DOGE was a valiant attempt to bring us back into constitutional compliance. [] https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Power-of-the-Purse/ https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Po...
- Braxton1980 1y ago
  Your own linked site says "Congress—and in particular, the House of Representatives—is invested with the “power of the purse,” the ability to tax and spend public money for the national government." But you said "The executive has the power to actually go out and spend the appropriated money." Explain
  - mothballed 1y ago
    — U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 7, clause 1 and — U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 9, clause 7 Says tax and appropriate. Constitution supersedes what the website says, I'm not sure why the website later misquoted it, but thanks for pointing it out.
    - ModernMech 1y ago
      Article II says the president must faithfully execute the laws, which means implementing Congress' will, not his own.
      - mothballed 1y ago
        Most of congresses appropriations can't be faithfully executed because they largely violate the tenth amendment, appropriating functions of the federal government outside the scope authorized by the constitution and reserved to the people and states. This is exactly what DOGE was helping to keep in check. At the times when the federal government was mostly within the constraints of the 10th amendment, federal spending was under 5% of GDP in non war-time.
        Braxton1980 1y ago
        >Most of congresses appropriations can't be faithfully.. If a law violates the 10th amendment then it should be challenged in court. The president doesn't decide what is constitutional the courts do.
        1y ago
- FireBeyond 1y ago
  > DOGE was a valiant attempt to bring us back into constitutional compliance. What garbage. I can guarantee the concept or discussion of "constitutional compliance" came up exactly zero times in Trump and Elon's discussion of deploying DOGE. Because if that was their true concern, there are other ways of figuring that out. Valiant? Our heroes...

by dangus 1y ago

mothballed 1y ago

>and that's notable because DOGE completely circumvented congress who is supposed to be the sole possessor of the power of the purse. Congress has the constitutional power of the purse but that refers specifically to raising and appropriating money[]. The executive has the power to actually go out and spend the appropriated money. Congress tried to usurp that power around the time of Nixon by stopping executive impoundment. But it's not clear if that's constitutional; it might be now under current SCOTUS interpretations but I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS reviews it and find that to be incorrect. Personally I think congress usurping power of impoundment is a bright and clear violation of checks and balances built into the constitution that requires two branches to approve of spending before it can actually get spent. DOGE was a valiant attempt to bring us back into constitutional compliance. [] https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Power-of-the-Purse/ https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Po...

Braxton1980 1y ago
Your own linked site says "Congress—and in particular, the House of Representatives—is invested with the “power of the purse,” the ability to tax and spend public money for the national government." But you said "The executive has the power to actually go out and spend the appropriated money." Explain
- mothballed 1y ago
  — U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 7, clause 1 and — U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 9, clause 7 Says tax and appropriate. Constitution supersedes what the website says, I'm not sure why the website later misquoted it, but thanks for pointing it out.
  - ModernMech 1y ago
    Article II says the president must faithfully execute the laws, which means implementing Congress' will, not his own.
    - mothballed 1y ago
      Most of congresses appropriations can't be faithfully executed because they largely violate the tenth amendment, appropriating functions of the federal government outside the scope authorized by the constitution and reserved to the people and states. This is exactly what DOGE was helping to keep in check. At the times when the federal government was mostly within the constraints of the 10th amendment, federal spending was under 5% of GDP in non war-time.
      - Braxton1980 1y ago
        >Most of congresses appropriations can't be faithfully.. If a law violates the 10th amendment then it should be challenged in court. The president doesn't decide what is constitutional the courts do.
        1y ago
FireBeyond 1y ago
> DOGE was a valiant attempt to bring us back into constitutional compliance. What garbage. I can guarantee the concept or discussion of "constitutional compliance" came up exactly zero times in Trump and Elon's discussion of deploying DOGE. Because if that was their true concern, there are other ways of figuring that out. Valiant? Our heroes...