Headed to Bern-a-palooza tonight.

[grandy]

Maybe I fell asleep in my US government class...but how does a president go about reforming the economy? I thought Congress has control over passing of the federal budget and most economic policies?

 

[tinselwolverine]

Maybe I fell asleep in my US government class...but how does a president go about reforming the economy? I thought Congress has control over passing of the federal budget and most economic policies?

It's both. Typically, the White House submits a budget proposal to the Congress through the office of management and budget. The Congress makes adjustments to the budget proposal and returns it to the president Who either vetoes, it signs it into law, or sends it back to Congress with proposed revisions. this process can go back-and-forth a number of times until a budget is agreed-upon.

Other ways the president can have an effect on the economy is through executive order, additionally bureaus and it departments like the SEC and the FTC within the executive branch Are authorized by legislation to implement certain regulatory acts.

Obviously the government economic policies are shaped by things beyond the budget, and of course much of what occurs in the economy is simply beyond the control of the government.

 

[grandy]

It's both. Typically, the White House submits a budget proposal to the Congress through the office of management and budget. The Congress makes adjustments to the budget proposal and returns it to the president Who either vetoes, it signs it into law, or sends it back to Congress with proposed revisions. this process can go back-and-forth a number of times until a budget is agreed-upon.

Other ways the president can have an effect on the economy is through executive order, additionally bureaus and it departments like the SEC and the FTC within the executive branch Are authorized by legislation to implement certain regulatory acts.

Obviously the government economic policies are shaped by things beyond the budget, and of course much of what occurs in the economy is simply beyond the control of the government.

Thanks

I figured the president had some special power over financial matters, but nothing major or permanent. It's why I'm generally skeptical of any candidatethat says they're going to balance the budget, reduce the deficit, cut or raise taxes, since it all sounds like it would require incredible cooperation between the branches.

I seriously wonder what the fervent supporters and opponents of Sanders envision his presidency to be. With a mixed Congress at best, I see him accomplishing very little, if anything, regarding economic matters.

The more I read the more I'm beginning to think foreign policy is the most important aspect of any presidential candidate, domestic policy seems to be influenced more by trends in public opinion and other external factors.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Thanks

You're welcome.


I figured the president had some special power over financial matters, but nothing major or permanent. It's why I'm generally skeptical of any candidatethat says they're going to balance the budget, reduce the deficit, cut or raise taxes, since it all sounds like it would require incredible cooperation between the branches.

Well, all presidential candidates of both parties say they're going to do this, and they're going to do that; everybody knows the president doesn't have unlimited to do what he or she says they are going to do.

This here will tell you who gets to do what - sort of. There's still some debate over exactly what it all means.

 

[Spartanmack]

wow, DETECTIVE DIPSHIT has this all figured out. Sanders has been elected, repeatedly, Mayor, congressman, and then senator, ALL as an independent, without the backing of either major party, and even now, without taking super PAC money like every other sleazebag candidate, and consistently has enjoyed approval ratings of 70%+ from his constituents, the highest of any sitting senator, yet it's only NOW that someone has figured all this out about him? he's been winning elections for decades in Vermont, against party-backed opponents, but this all just didn't come
out... or maybe because it's all trumped up bullshit.

weak shit, from the weakest poster on this board.

even tLiar could muster better than this (when he wasn't lying and welching).

stfu and gtfo

Like I said, he's never held a real job...after spending the first 20 years of his adult life as a shiftless, lazy layabout he finally, after failing multiple times got elected to mayor and has progressed from their on his platform of redistribution.

 

[Spartanmack]

Maybe I fell asleep in my US government class...but how does a president go about reforming the economy? I thought Congress has control over passing of the federal budget and most economic policies?

You may have fallen asleep, but it could also be that you're not particularly bright if you think the President has nothing to do with setting public policy. And if you think Sanders doesn't want to overall the economy to create his redistributive utopia, you're definitely not paying attention.

 

[Michchamp]

You may have fallen asleep, but it could also be that you're not particularly bright if you think the President has nothing to do with setting public policy. And if you think Sanders doesn't want to overall the economy to create his redistributive utopia, you're definitely not paying attention.

It seems like Republitard media was largely ignoring Sanders, or even occassionally showing him positively next to Billary, but I guess he's doing well enough they felt it was time to begin the re-education programming on him, if your posts of today are any indication.

 

[grandy]

You may have fallen asleep, but it could also be that you're not particularly bright if you think the President has nothing to do with setting public policy. And if you think Sanders doesn't want to overall the economy to create his redistributive utopia, you're definitely not paying attention.

I'm less concerned with what he wants to do and more concerned with what he's actually capable of doing. All I've seen is fear-mongering/fantasizing from either side.

What can Sanders do to help or ruin the country with a Republican congress?

 

[Gulo Blue]

I'm less concerned with what he wants to do and more concerned with what he's actually capable of doing. All I've seen is fear-mongering/fantasizing from either side.

What can Sanders do to help or ruin the country with a Republican congress?

That's how I feel about it too. He may want to push too far toward socialist policies, but there's no chance he could actually make it all happen. Maybe Obama really wants to take everyone's guns too, but it's not happening. Maybe Republicans want to get Roe v Wade overturned, but it ain't happening.

I don't want to base my vote on stuff that ain't happening either way.

 

[Spartanmack]

I'm less concerned with what he wants to do and more concerned with what he's actually capable of doing. All I've seen is fear-mongering/fantasizing from either side.

What can Sanders do to help or ruin the country with a Republican congress?

I don't believe when someone who espouses dangerous, failed policies gets elected to the highest office in the world it's "no harm, no foul" because gridlock will keep him from putting his policies in place. These things happen in steps and by degrees. Say Bernie gets elected and Congress doesn't write and pass laws that fit his agenda and he vetoes everything they put before him. Then the narrative becomes, Bernie wasn't able to fix it because he's the victim of an obstructionist Congress, not thank goodness Congress kept that extremist in check. And even if it the case, then we get gridlock - maybe not the worst but very much a suboptimal outcome.

 

[grandy]

I don't believe when someone who espouses dangerous, failed policies gets elected to the highest office in the world it's "no harm, no foul" because gridlock will keep him from putting his policies in place. These things happen in steps and by degrees. Say Bernie gets elected and Congress doesn't write and pass laws that fit his agenda and he vetoes everything they put before him. Then the narrative becomes, Bernie wasn't able to fix it because he's the victim of an obstructionist Congress, not thank goodness Congress kept that extremist in check. And even if it the case, then we get gridlock - maybe not the worst but very much a suboptimal outcome.

I guess my view doesn't fit the narrative then. I see it as a two-way street for blame when it comes to gridlock. There's no reason for two sides to be so ideologically stubborn that nothing gets done, typically no side is justified in these matters and they should all be held accountable by the voters. Not doing your job and refusing to work with co-workers usually gets one fired in the real world, but not in Washington. This is mainly why I won't vote for Bernie, I'm not scared of his policies, I'm scared of four years of continued partisan bickering with no action and further division. I think a moderate Republican has the best chance of at least restoring order, but who knows if one will survive the primaries.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I don't believe when someone who espouses dangerous, failed policies gets elected to the highest office in the world it's "no harm, no foul" because gridlock will keep him from putting his policies in place. These things happen in steps and by degrees. Say Bernie gets elected and Congress doesn't write and pass laws that fit his agenda and he vetoes everything they put before him. Then the narrative becomes, Bernie wasn't able to fix it because he's the victim of an obstructionist Congress, not thank goodness Congress kept that extremist in check. And even if it the case, then we get gridlock - maybe not the worst but very much a suboptimal outcome.

"These things happen in steps and by degrees. "

Agreed. And I don't think a step in that direction will hurt us as bad as another President working for Wall St. Not only that, but I think the wake up call to the establishment would make our next batch of candidates of better quality. I think we could maybe get a Kasich instead of a Cruz if the GOP took the threat of a socialist getting elected more seriously.

 

[Spartanmack]

"These things happen in steps and by degrees. "

Agreed. And I don't think a step in that direction will hurt us as bad as another President working for Wall St. Not only that, but I think the wake up call to the establishment would make our next batch of candidates of better quality. I think we could maybe get a Kasich instead of a Cruz if the GOP took the threat of a socialist getting elected more seriously.

maybe not, but that's only because we have a GOP congress dominated by establishment GOPers at the moment - and I'd rather not take the chance that Bernie wins the White House then the midterms shift congress back to the establishment Dems - or worse, to more progressive dems. That's a horribly misleading word by the way "progressive."

Personally, I think Kasich would be that establishment, crony capitalist business as usual guy beholden to special interests. I'm totally fed up with the GOP establishment - as much as I am with the Dem establishment. I want major reform starting with term limits, then a complete overhaul of the tax code, entitlement reform, real healthcare reform that works for everyone. I would have gone with Rand Paul but he's too soft on National Security - and I disagree with him on a lot of social policies. Those are mostly secondary issues for me as a voter but there's enough disagreement for them to matter. Right now, I'd prefer to see Cruz win the nomination and the election. I don't think he's nearly as extreme as the establishment GOP and the Dems want everyone to think. He's a young, energetic Constitutionalist, small government reformer. I'd much rather see him face gridlock of a Congress dominated by establishment Dems and GOP than Sanders or Shillary.

 

[Spartanmack]

I guess my view doesn't fit the narrative then. I see it as a two-way street for blame when it comes to gridlock. There's no reason for two sides to be so ideologically stubborn that nothing gets done, typically no side is justified in these matters and they should all be held accountable by the voters. Not doing your job and refusing to work with co-workers usually gets one fired in the real world, but not in Washington. This is mainly why I won't vote for Bernie, I'm not scared of his policies, I'm scared of four years of continued partisan bickering with no action and further division. I think a moderate Republican has the best chance of at least restoring order, but who knows if one will survive the primaries.

It is a two way street but that's not where the blame falls. The media will not portray it as two broken parties. The overwhelming theme will be that of Republican obstructionism. Just look at the discourse in last election - Romney was out there saying Obama’s a good guy, he’s a good family man, a good husband, a man who believes in the basic principles espoused by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution but a bad on the economy, foreign policy, has been a divider, not a unifier, etc. Good guy, bad president. Contrast that with what Obama and his team said about Romney, basically he is the worst guy since Mussolini who will “put y’all back in chains,” is leading a “war on women” he's the type of guy who would specifically fire an employee so that five years later his wife would die of cancer thanks to lack of health insurance. To listen to them you'd think Romney was a rich, sexist, callous racist jackass. I have no doubt he's been far more generous with his wealth than Obama ever will - maybe not as generous as Sanders would be with Romney's money (bu dat bum!). But the media feeds into this Dem narrative of Republicans. Dems and the media paint conservatives as morally bad people.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Personally, I think Kasich would be that establishment, crony capitalist business as usual guy beholden to special interests.

That's fair. It's tough to tell when someone hasn't raised much money. His top donor is still MBNA.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00009778

 

[Spartanmack]

That's fair. It's tough to tell when someone hasn't raised much money. His top donor is still MBNA.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00009778

I could be wrong but I think that's more a reflection of where he falls in the order of preferred establishment candidates and indicates the viability of his candidacy in their eyes - maybe they made a mistake throwing money at Bush and Christie, but I don't know. This is just my opinion - I haven't spent much time analyzing him because he barely registered on my results from isidewith.com

 

[tinselwolverine]

That's fair. It's tough to tell when someone hasn't raised much money. His top donor is still MBNA.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00009778

I've always liked Kasich.

I've always thought he would be a good president, like for 30 years.

Not that I thought he would have been a good president 30 years ago; I mean, 30 years ago, I thought "wow...that guy would be a good president one day."

I think he's actually going to be elected.

I hope so.

To my knowledge, he isn't linked to "crony capitalism" nor has he ever been either in the HOR or as governor of Ohio.

I think he's going to emerge as the nominee from the first Republican brokered convention since...forever.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I think he's going to emerge as the nominee from the first Republican brokered convention since...forever.

That would be incredible. The loudest people would be furious. I'm not even sure how I'd react.

 

[Michchamp]

I really don't see how Sanders' policies are extreme. We lived with much higher marginal tax rates from 1940-1980, ironclad regulation of Wall Street, and actually enforced anti-trust laws. The result was the most egalitarian and productive society we've ever known. It was easier for most people to earn a satisfactory living.

This isn't socialism; it's applying some degree of socialist principles to blunt the edge of capitalism; to blunt the edge of a "winner take all" economy where the "winners" aren't necessarily the smartest or most talented, but the most selfish, self-promoting, and sociopathic [insert chart showing lack of correlation between CEO pay and performance here].

Assuming Bernie couldn't accomplish all this in one go due to political opposition, he could at least get the ball rolling in the right direction.

Hopefully after 4-8 years of this, more people would come around. All those disaffected Trump supporters would realize racism, blaming Mexicans and Blacks, etc isn't going to actually help them.

Despite what some people may say, about the country getting more liberal, this or that, I think that's all misleading; sure gay marriages are recognized now, and they weren't in 1980. and marijuana laws are softening. But these changes are social policies that represent changes in majority views over time. On the economic issues, the things that determine real importance, we've been consistently moving right since 1980... stagnated wages, workers losing their ability to negotiate wages and benefits, less regulation of business ( and in the case of Wall Street ZERO criminal regulation), lower marginal taxes on high (I would even say excessive) income, higher corporate consolidation and monopoly power, income disparity, etc.

if these sound like empty platitudes, they're not. the evidence is there to support all of them; i just can't google it now. But you should also read about the shocking overdose epidemic, widening gap in life expectancy of wealthy vs. poor, and declining life expectancy of middle class white Americans, the latter is really crazy because it's the first time in a developed country where that has happened. But all three factors show that all is not okay and things are getting out of control. These are people that our economic system has failed. they didn't do anything wrong, and there are more and more of them.

 

[tomdalton22]

I really don't see how Sanders' policies are extreme. We lived with much higher marginal tax rates from 1940-1980, ironclad regulation of Wall Street, and actually enforced anti-trust laws. The result was the most egalitarian and productive society we've ever known. It was easier for most people to earn a satisfactory living.

This isn't socialism; it's applying some degree of socialist principles to blunt the edge of capitalism; to blunt the edge of a "winner take all" economy where the "winners" aren't necessarily the smartest or most talented, but the most selfish, self-promoting, and sociopathic [insert chart showing lack of correlation between CEO pay and performance here].

of course YOU don't think his policies are extreme.

I don't know how anyone who professes to be in favor of hard work and personal accountability can oppose my proposal, but they do. Even the Democrats would never pass it, and a Republitard president would declare martial law if it came close to passing: tax everything over $1MM in anyone's estate at 100%, guarantee every kid health insurance, equally good education, free day care, and college tuition. Fund all the shit people need to get to work (better nationwide mass transit, roads, bridges, rails, etc.).

no one gets to inherit wealth and be lazy. no lazy rich kids get ahead of hard working poor kids just because they're parents can pay for private education.

you can make as much money as you want in your life, buy a grostesquely large mansion, 50 cars, giant yacht, a private jet, wallow in your own crapulence for decades, etc., but it all gets redistributed after you die.

Free enterprise is preserved. Society will be closer to a true meritorcracy.