peepnklown
Frankernaut
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2009
- Messages
- 607
- Reaction score
- 177
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I say, giving the President more power is a bad idea.
If we want to stop Congress from adding unrelated items in bills then we need something like the ‘One Subject at a Time Act’ or OSTA.
We need to limit power rather than grant more power.
Just because you doubt Congress will pass such a bill does not mean we need to give the federal government more power. The federal government already assumes they have more power beyond what the US Constitution grants them so why codify it with an amendment? As a libertarian we need less government, eh?The more I read the responses to this thread, and the more I think about it, the less sure I am that a line item veto is a good idea after all. One subject at a time might work better, but who is going to pass it? The same Congress that likes to play dirty politics by passing bills with unrelated subjects?
I have thought about this and realize I voted wrongly. Think about what we would create if the POTUS could do this. The POTUS not having line item veto keeps the balance in the bills and legislation that he has to sign. What good would it be to write the bills with Dem or GOP items in it if you know the POTUS is going to veto it anyway? Politicians would just give up and it would give the Pres a lot more autocratic power.
Just because you doubt Congress will pass such a bill does not mean we need to give the federal government more power. The federal government already assumes they have more power beyond what the US Constitution grants them so why codify it with an amendment? As a libertarian we need less government, eh?
I think you would be surprised how many in Congress would support OSTA. It will take hard work but, that is the nature of such things.
I cannot follow your method of thinking but, maybe some people rather treat the symptoms rather than cure the disease even if such treatment is killing you slowly.Yep, I'm for it. As for concern about abuses of a line-item-veto....Bwahahahaha! Is that anything like abuses of legislation by congress? Because I'm pretty sure that a line-item veto, whether it's fairly applied or partisianly applied will get rid of at least half the abuse in any given year. GOP abuses cut during a Democrat Prez's term, Democrat abuses cut during a GOP Prez's term would be the worst case scenario. And right now, worst case is STILL better than what we've got, which is no budget, record deficit, and complete congressional paralysis.
It would not be an easy sell, that's for sure, but... the Civil Rights Act was passed by predominantly white guys. Women's suffrage was passed by men. So, it's not unheard of that a body of people would vote to dilute their own power if they can be convinced the cause is just....who is going to pass it? The same Congress that likes to play dirty politics by passing bills with unrelated subjects?
Yeah, like that insider trading stuff we all heard about? Nah, not nowadays. Civil Rights and Womens Suffrage was easy because those white guys and men knew they were oppressing and discriminating, they were just waiting on someone to call them on it. This stuff? No way. Our gov't has gotten so powerful and aloof, it would never happen. I'm just wondering when something is going to happen to change the way things are going.It would not be an easy sell, that's for sure, but... the Civil Rights Act was passed by predominantly white guys. Women's suffrage was passed by men. So, it's not unheard of that a body of people would vote to dilute their own power if they can be convinced the cause is just.
Plus, in the case of women's rights, most of those men were living with one.Yeah, like that insider trading stuff we all heard about? Nah, not nowadays. Civil Rights and Womens Suffrage was easy because those white guys and men knew they were oppressing and discriminating, they were just waiting on someone to call them on it. This stuff? No way. Our gov't has gotten so powerful and aloof, it would never happen. I'm just wondering when something is going to happen to change the way things are going.
Sometimes, the most obvious observation is the best and funniest. Good one :applaudPlus, in the case of women's rights, most of those men were living with one.
Different time, different era, different family dynamic.Plus, in the case of women's rights, most of those men were living with one.
By that logic... What took so long?Sometimes, the most obvious observation is the best and funniest. Good one :applaud
Different time, different era, different family dynamic.
Congress does not seem to have the will to change. They seem not to have the will to stop pork barrell spending.
Presidents used to have the ability to not spend funds Congress had appropriated. I would support that limited version of the line-item veto. They are working in the House on a bipartisan measure that would allow the President to strip out provisions and send it back to Congress for an automatic up-or-down-vote, which I would also support.
Yep, I'm for it. As for concern about abuses of a line-item-veto....Bwahahahaha! Is that anything like abuses of legislation by congress? Because I'm pretty sure that a line-item veto, whether it's fairly applied or partisianly applied will get rid of at least half the abuse in any given year. GOP abuses cut during a Democrat Prez's term, Democrat abuses cut during a GOP Prez's term would be the worst case scenario. And right now, worst case is STILL better than what we've got, which is no budget, record deficit, and complete congressional paralysis.
The more I read the responses to this thread, and the more I think about it, the less sure I am that a line item veto is a good idea after all. One subject at a time might work better, but who is going to pass it? The same Congress that likes to play dirty politics by passing bills with unrelated subjects?
That would be an improvement, but at the same time seems more complicated that it needs to be.Presidents used to have the ability to not spend funds Congress had appropriated. I would support that limited version of the line-item veto. They are working in the House on a bipartisan measure that would allow the President to strip out provisions and send it back to Congress for an automatic up-or-down-vote, which I would also support.
Yep. People hate other people's pork, but they love their own.Because the people like it. That's the definition of pork, in fact - spending that pleases the folks back home.
At least the single-subject concept is more transparent for all involved, and makes Congresspeople more easily identifiable for what they vote for and don't vote for as well as the President.If the President had the line-item veto, it wouldn't be much different from one subject at a time.
At least the single-subject concept is more transparent for all involved, and makes Congresspeople more easily identifiable for what they vote for and don't vote for as well as the President.
makes Congresspeople more easily identifiable for what they vote for and don't vote for as well as the President.
If the President had the line-item veto, it wouldn't be much different from one subject at a time.