Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

From the whole site or just this forum?

It says he's online and his posts have jumped by 5 since I posted that reply..

I think he was heading to 4chan and took a wrong turn at Albuquerque and ended up hear.

lol damn you 4chan!

kittenslayer wrote:

jfrazell wrote:

kittenslayer wrote:
Soviet actions and in Afghanistan is no different to Nato's actions there right now. You guys are all arguing on the assumption that Western powers wants to "help" those countries.

Impressive. What a brilliantly moronic statement.

feth up gak head.

Try reading some books before you open your mouth and display to the world your ignorance, yet again.

Ahtman wrote:QFT

I'd go so far as to say the President has no control over the economy beyond the illusion of control, which in economics can sometimes be enough. Markets do what they are going to do, regardless of speech's or legislation. If it is going down, or up, there is little to do but place blame or accept the glory.

Half the things people ask for out of the President he has no authority to do.

There's a middle ground between a president have nothing like the assumed level of power over the economy and the president having no influence. While it can't be entirely placed at his feet, you can look at policies of the Bush admin and note the direct, negative effect they've had on the US economy. The free-for-all budget spending, pulling dollars away from investment. The Iraq war, furthering the deficit and leading directly to the gas price spike. The lack of regulatory reform in the finance sector, by no means a sin of Bush alone, has played a significant part.

Ah, but Bush can't actually do those things. I do believe there is someone, or a group, he has to go through to get them done. The President can't approve or disapprove budgets or programs, beyond veto.

The budget request comes directly from the desk of the President. Major deviation from the request itself is extremely rare. Partially because Congress is rarely united enough for such opposition. but also because opposing the fundamental structure of the budget is a major challenge to Presidential power; which neither party really wants to see limited.

Responsibility for the budget gets a lot more complicated when the president and congress are at each other's throats. While a lot of Democrats will try to credit Clinton entirely with bringing the budget closer to sanity, a fair portion of the credit has to go to the Republican congress.

But in this instance we've had a Republican president and a Republican congressional majority following his lead in near lock step, it's hard to see the budget as anything but th product of the president. Especially when you look at the major causes of the deficit, the tax cuts and the Iraq war, coming straight from the office of the president.

The President can make all the budget requests he wants, but then, so can you. Congress still has the purse strings. The President has no real authority in this area. Go read your Constitution.

Ahtman wrote:The President can make all the budget requests he wants, but then, so can you. Congress still has the purse strings. The President has no real authority in this area. Go read your Constitution.

But this assumption ignores the ability of the president to communicate and deal with congress. And when the congressional majority is from the same party and that party is currently marching in lockstep...

The idea that a president can't shape spending isn't supported by the realities of politics.

Slightly off-topic, but this seems to be the best US political chat going!

As an outsider looking in to US politics (not being able to vote hardly counts here - the result of the US election will probably have more effect on my life than the result of the next UK election. Sad but true) I have to say I was an ardent Obama fan but am now leaning towards McCain.

Obama won it for me with his 'I'll talk to the Iranians' policy. But then he gutted that while standing in front of AIPAC.
Whilst this should have come as no surprise (all politics is local after all) I really hoped that America had finally found someone who had the courage of their convictions and who would be prepared to say:
YES, we want a free and secure Israel, YES, they'll always be a close fried and ally but please STOP coming the c@*t with this 'Greater Israel' (mmm, does the phrase 'Greater Germany' ring any bells) cr@p!

The ONLY way there will be peace in the middle east is if all sides sit down and talk about it and the Iranians are the key. They are not only the lynchpin of the Islamic world but are the most progressive middle eastern state outwith the Lebanon. What they will not do is sit down to talk with 'conditions'. After all as proud and patriotic Americans would you talk to a country who said 'We want a meeting, but you have to do A, B and C first'. Of course not!

This is what I was hoping Obama would do, but as he now won't (to avoid months of being called anti-semitic), we go to plan B (i.e. continue with a military presence and hope for the best).

And frankly, no-one will do better with Plan B than John McCain.

Ahtman wrote:The President can make all the budget requests he wants, but then, so can you. Congress still has the purse strings. The President has no real authority in this area. Go read your Constitution.

Well, except for the abilty to veto a budget. It's disengenous to state that congress creates the budget in a vacuum, even as in constitutional theory. In political reality, when the White House is strong and popular (as it was for years), Congress tends to bend over. In addition, the State of the Union is a constitutional requirement, and it has become the power to shape the agenda. There is plenty of culpability to go around, don't fear.

Yes, but the Congress can OVERTURN a veto, as well.

There is that (brilliant) little "balance of power" thing the founders came up with.

dienekes96 wrote:Yes, but the Congress can OVERTURN a veto, as well.

There is that (brilliant) little "balance of power" thing the founders came up with.

Of course there is, but I don't think that was my point. I was merely pointing out that laying all the blame for the budget on congress is sloppy. It's a process of compromise and working together.

If the founders saw the current range of presidential power they would be shocked. that's not a bad thing, half of them would be shocked the country is still standing and all would be amazed we're a major world power. The founders explicely rejected parlimentary democracy, which emphasizes coalition building followed by doing more or less what the Ruling Party wants. Our system requires gutless compromise, pork barrel projects, and a certain amount of partisan mudslinging to work. It's just the way to govern 300 million people from every conceivable background over a continent.

Earlier there was an idea that the current congress is equally corrupt to the congress during Bush's first term. I think it's important to seperate and catagorize what you're talking about. Pork isn't corruption. It's a direct outlay, legally requested, legally approved, legally signed into law, and legally spent. It might be dumb, wasteful, and the result of political leverage, but it's legal and in no way corrupt.

Polonius wrote:Well, except for the abilty to veto a budget. It's disengenous to state that congress creates the budget in a vacuum, even as in constitutional theory. In political reality, when the White House is strong and popular (as it was for years), Congress tends to bend over. In addition, the State of the Union is a constitutional requirement, and it has become the power to shape the agenda. There is plenty of culpability to go around, don't fear.

I specifically said that the Executive could could Veto, thank you for repeating that. The influence of the Presidency has grown over the years, but it almost always has depended on a compliant congress and court to allow them to get away with it and an ill informed public to back him as well. Influence and power are not the same thing, though very closely tied. Though maybe we should discern Power and power. I don't think there is any question everyone is to blame, especially those who don't vote that can.

I'm not sure it isn't a good thing that the framers would be shocked to see that the power of the executive has spread so far beyond it's reach. Pork is not corrupt, it just leads to corruption, impropriety, and the appearance of impropriety, especially anonymous earmarks. Though I'm not sure their is a way around much of it, as what point is the government's budget if it isn't using it to help and each state is different. It could use some reform to create more transparency but we'll never see it go completely, and shouldn't.

Sorry for missing the earlier post where you mentioned the veto, I just saw you post that said "the president has no real authority..." over the budget.

The Court has a pretty admirable policy, IMO, of staying out of what it deems to be political questions. A few cases aside, the court generally doesn't uphold or strike down laws based on how good or bad they are, but on if they are constitutional or not. (A lot of the cases that are nebulous are in an area call substantive due process, which is theory that there are inherent rights of control over marraige, child rearing, and sex that the government may not interfere with. It's nebulous because while there is wiggle room in the idea of "Due process," constitutional scholars aren't wild about wiggle room.)

The romans actually had a word for legal authority, Imperium. I like the term authority for legit power that a politcal body or executive can exert, while influence is more the ability to control others through political means. It is crucial to keep those two things seperate, but in the era of the Imperial Presidency (more or less since FDR) every president inherently has enormous influence, whereas in the past only a few had (or exercised) such influence.

With regards to a compliant congress, I think it's natural result of the rewards being a congressman bring it's members. They have power, and money flows to power. As long as you can get reelected, platform positions can get misty.

And this brings us to your final point: the pretty apathetic nature of the American voter. The voter is the final judge of a government's performance, and based on how people vote (if at all), then it's working pretty well. I guess I don't see a reason to hand wring over people not voting: a non-vote is more or less a vote of general support for the majority, right? I would agree that there is a moral duty to vote for what's right, but since the end of the progressive era of the 1960's, the battle lines have gotten far fuzzier. Civil Rights, Pollution controls, Woman's lib, fighting the Soviets: these were things that were, at least in retrospect, very clear issues that had a morally correct solution. In modern politics, the issues are far fuzzier. Immigration is a hot button issue, and I think every side of the debate has a morally and logically defensible point.

Even the war in Iraq isn't clear. the government did a good job of selling it, and there is evidence of... if not lies, then certainly carefully selected facts. Are we safer now? Was it worth it? Will staying there be worth it? We don't know, and anybody that is 100% certain is deluding themselves. I'm using this is an example of how things are more complicated and less clearcut.

How does this relate to people who don't vote? I think people recusing themselves because they simply dont' care or dont' want to analyze the issues is an ok thing. I wish people cared more, and I wished people watched government more, but the people are a part of the process, and they do benefit. Look at the AARP: one of the most powerful groups, and they want their money.

Ahtman wrote:

Polonius wrote: Pork is not corrupt, it just leads to corruption, impropriety, and the appearance of impropriety, especially anonymous earmarks. Though I'm not sure their is a way around much of it, as what point is the government's budget if it isn't using it to help and each state is different. It could use some reform to create more transparency but we'll never see it go completely, and shouldn't.

Respectfully, thats a semantic argument. Cash in an envelop is not a bribe either, its just cash. in an envelop.

Both powers are equally at fault, euqally to blame, and equally disdained by the public. Lets not forget the vaunted Democratic Congress that was going to reduce the price of gas, help the average man, balance the budget and bring on nirvana, has been an active partiicpant in theballooning of the budget. The Republicans didn't do anything (McCain notwithstanding). The President did not veto. A pox on all their houses.

Vote for me, I'll make the trains run on time!

What we really in need in our nation IMO is to come together as one and resolve the issues currently plagueing us. if we cant get over our differances the political BS will just continue to go around and round. I live in a small town where most people work at factories and ill tell you this much bussiness is not good. The economy needs a serious overhaul. My wife goes to school full time to her education while i work when she is finish i intend to go back to school to get my education but everyone doesnt have the type of benefiets that me and my wife have being vetrans.

How do you propose that we come together as one? Usually that argument gets tossed when one group tries to tell another group what to do.

How do we come together on:
***price of gas/US energy needs?

***war against terrorism

***war in Iraq/Afghanistan

***Iran getting the bomb-shipping to Hezbullah the next day?

***overall economy?

***decline of the middle class?

***decline of the manufacturing base?

***American Idol?

Polonius wrote:I guess I don't see a reason to hand wring over people not voting: a non-vote is more or less a vote of general support for the majority, right?

Wrong. A non-engaged electorate, and more are not than are, is a bad thing because it leads to greater and greater polarization as the only people getting involved are the extremes. There is always going to be opposition parties, and that is good, but when your only two options are Facist Killer and Radical Communist Killer, that is bad. That is obliviously an exaggeration but the fringes gain more power through apathy then through support. I don't want, nor expect 100% voting, but we barely scrape the 50% mark. The last time we got in the 60% range (60.8%) was 40 years ago. If you want to read the practical ramifications of a large block of non-voters, read Marc Bloch's Strange Defeat (1940). It's a good read even if you don't look for those things.

The question of relative influence over the budget between the "Power of the Purse" embedded in the Congress and the role of the Executive is an interesting one in contemporary American politics.

In this regard, it is important to consider the drives on federal expenditures as occupying three separate realms:

1) Programmatic/"auto-pilot" spending

2) Discretionary domestic expenditures

3) Discretionary defense

The Presidential power seems to be strongest in the last realm. Although there are some limitations on unilateral base closures and the like, the President has the power to control deployments and other personnel issues that drive a good chunk of the defense budget. Even within this, however, dissent within the Pentagon and opposition from Congress can hold significant sway over the what projects find funding, particularly in procurement.

Examples? The Air Force's successful lobbying for the F-22 and other projects out of line with Sec. Gates and the administration as a whole spawned the recent change in leadership that has been getting so much play in the papers. During the early part of the decade a massive self-propelled artillery system (sorry, its been long enough that the system's name escapes my mind) lived on for quite a while on account of its Congressional protector (JC Watts of Oklahoma at the time.) Similarly, the V-22 Osprey's survival as a program in face of early setbacks owed a great deal to the relatively unknown (publicly, at least until 2006,) but internally influential member of the Armed Services Committee member whose district housed many project workers (Curt Weldon.)

This decade's spate of supplemental war appropriations is another twist on this-they started off relatively untouched when they worked their way through Congress, but as the conflicts they are meant to fund have grown more unpopular and public scrutiny has lessened, Congress has grown considerably more comfortable with adding their own goodies to these. After all, someone who campaigned against the war needs a few goods to take home to the just folks types in the district in exchange for their vote . . .

From this survey, we can see that the President's influence is quite strong on the overall shape of military spending. However, his authority is weakest in the area of procurement spending, which is a tremendous subcategory of this portion of the budget (approximately 35% or so, according to the Wiki #'s for R&D and procurement,) which undermines the presidential office's influence over this area as a whole. This can also become more pronounced when the "unitary executive" facade collapses in the face of internal rivalries and renegade requests from within the departments that fall on favorable ears.

The topic of discretionary domestic spending is also quite an interesting one, with some nuances during the Bush presidency in light of the recent change in Congressional control. However, the overall trend of the Bush years has been conflict between Presidential office and the Congressional leadership, even when his own party was in power, so the Democratic rise is perhaps less of a change in this dynamic than would be supposed.

One of the drivers in this dynamic has been the difference in interests between the Congress and the President in this realm. I think it is a fair statement that the President's administration has been much more concerned with foreign policy issues than discretionary domestic spending, partially because of the fall out from its own ham-fisted endevours in this areas (particularly in programmatic spending, see below) and the necessities of an ongoing military conflict.

The result of this has been a steadily increasing Congressional hand on the national tiller.

Another important equation here is the alphabet soup of federal agencies working against the Office of Management and Budget's attempt to present a unified front. Even within a relatively small department, there are numerous subagencies with their own regulatory and budgetary needs. Rest assured that any agency seeking additional funding can find a convincing private surrogate to carry its requests. This trend has only been enhanced by the success of this tactic in influencing regulatory bodies and issues (a whole other topic . . .)

The net result of this has been a state in which the President's budget requests are dead on arrival, and have been for some years. What we get is a game of chicken in which we see how far the veto threat can go to restrain spending, while Congressional budget leaders see how far they can stretch a veto-proof margin, with the subtle twist in the game of each side knowing that a budget must be passed within certain timelines (absent the use of continuing resolutions-a quite frequent occurence in the Bush years.)

In this game, the President sometimes wins and holds down spending (the last transportation reauthorization,) while at other times the Congress has its ways (most recent farm bills, they will also win on housing subsidies this year.)

So from this we can see that the President does have some sway on domestic spending, but often in the role of capping expenditures, and that is not always successful.

A great deal of federal spending is based on programmatic entitlement spending in categories such as Social Security and Medicare. Those of you from the US know the broad canvas of this, so I will state simply that the President has almost no control over a portion of the budget that dwarfs discretionary programs in terms of long term implications. The President has failed to show much leadership on reform, but it must be noted that he received no interest from Congress when he broached the issue in the past, and blame must rest with the only branch of government that can influence these obligations. And yes, that is Congress.

There was a sad article in USA Today a few weeks ago in which you can see the magnitude of these accumulated promises:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-05-28-federal-budget_N.htm?csp=34

Now I do not entirely excuse office of the President here. There have been plenty of opportunities for him to demonstrate leadership and whip the party into line. But by design, Congress has the whip hand over the crafting of the details of federal expenditures, and it has proven a unified enough body in the past years to overcome executive opposition to its ideas.

That is far to well thought out and nuanced for this venue.

It seemed to work well enough in the nanny state/hands off/healthcare thread a while back

jfrazell wrote:How do you propose that we come together as one? Usually that argument gets tossed when one group tries to tell another group what to do.

How do we come together on:
***price of gas/US energy needs?

***war against terrorism

***war in Iraq/Afghanistan

***Iran getting the bomb-shipping to Hezbullah the next day?

***overall economy?

***decline of the middle class?

***decline of the manufacturing base?

***American Idol?

1st: Convine auto manufactures to devolop more fuel efficent vehicles and invest money into alternative fuel and energy sources with a dedicated time span.
2nd: finish the war in afghanistan where the seeds of terroism began.
3rd: Iraq is a bloody mess due to our own incompetance and intelligence remove troops and dump them into afghanistan. we just cant completly pull out of Iraq it would cause more harm then good but we can put LOTS more responsabilites on the Iraq "goverment" and their people.
4th: Open more serious talks with Iran and convince other nations in the region and through out the world to do the same.
5th: you got me on that one buddy
6th & 7th: Stop american bussiness from going overseas and create more american made american owned companies.
8th: WATCH MORE BATTLESTAR GALICATA
anyways those are just my opinions im no politician or a expert on economy or war for that matter but these are all steps foward IMO

nieto666 wrote:
6th & 7th: Stop american bussiness from going overseas and create more american made american owned companies.
8th: WATCH MORE BATTLESTAR GALICATA
anyways those are just my opinions im no politician or a expert on economy or war for that matter but these are all steps foward IMO

Sadly the most effective contribution to the retention of manufacturing and other industries (domestic film production is a huge example here) in the US is the weak dollar, which directly works against middle class prosperity.

+1 on #8 though.

All I have to say is, never mess with a Cylon skinjob laying in her "tub," especially if you're the guy who put her there.

nieto666 wrote:
1st: Convine auto manufactures to devolop more fuel efficent vehicles and invest money into alternative fuel and energy sources with a dedicated time span.
2nd: finish the war in afghanistan where the seeds of terroism began.
3rd: Iraq is a bloody mess due to our own incompetance and intelligence remove troops and dump them into afghanistan. we just cant completly pull out of Iraq it would cause more harm then good but we can put LOTS more responsabilites on the Iraq "goverment" and their people.
4th: Open more serious talks with Iran and convince other nations in the region and through out the world to do the same.
5th: you got me on that one buddy
6th & 7th: Stop american bussiness from going overseas and create more american made american owned companies.
8th: WATCH MORE BATTLESTAR GALICATA
anyways those are just my opinions im no politician or a expert on economy or war for that matter but these are all steps foward IMO

1: Interesting, but heavily problematic. Telling a corporation to develop alternative energy sources by date X is not entirely unlike telling Bell/Boeing to make the Osprey work by date Y. What do you do if the corporation fails? Keep funding them? Pull the plug? Alternative fuels will be found, but there is little the government can do to expedite the process.

2: Afghanistan is much like Iraq in that it is an exercise in state building. This means the conflict is just as difficult and nuanced as the one in Iraq. Presuming that we have to commit to at least one front in the "war on terror" (an endlessly hilarious term) I'm not sure that Afghanistan is really the best choice. There just isn't that much to gain in establishing a stable government there. Especially since Pakistan could be convined to shoulder much of the burden in the absence of the US.

3: Leaving a minimal force in Iraq as anything beyond advisory staff is simply asking for a PR nightmare. What do you tell the American public when a couple hundred US troops die in a major offensive/bombing in a nation which we would supposedly be "out" of? It would be like Lebanon all over again. Like it or not Iraq is an all or nothing affair. Either we leave and let the various factions duke it out, or we stay and hope to arbitrate a truce.

4: I'll give you a better answer for this one. We do nothing. We allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. Why? Because no nation in their right mind would EVER allow a non-state actor access to nuclear hardware. It completely breaks down the legitimacy of the national system, and severely endangers the continued existence of the state itself. If a nuclear bomb went off on US soil who do you think would suffer for it? Regardless of actual fault, Iran and North Korea would find themselves in a world of hurt; esepcially since they are both heavily industrialized nations. Moreover, once the nuke is out in the open the state which created it will have no control over how it might be used; meaning that it could just as easily be turned against them as their enemies.

5: The answer to fixin the economy lies in 6 and 7. Unfortunately there is no easy answer to those either. However, I do believe that manufactuing in the US is a dead sector, and that the fall of the middle class has alot to do with the inability of people to shift from traditionally production based jobs to more service oriented ones.

8: Reinstitue gladitorial combat and feed Ryan Seacrest to the lions. Not only would Idol be finished, but we would all have a whole new popular diversion. Text live or die to xxxx!

Edited repeatedly because Dakka doesn't seem to like semi-colons.

Thanks for that article Alpharius Walks, an interesting read.

There is no real quickfix for anything who ever gets elected will be fixing this mess for their entire term. The thing ithe Iraq and Afghanistan is we are trying to give people freedom whov never tasted it before and may not even want. When i said take troops out of Iraq and put them in Afghanaistan i meant drop the force level by like 50,000. This still leaves plenty of boots on the ground and some forces can be redirected to another theater of operation. If Iran even gets close to gaining a NUKE Israel will attack hell their Prime Minster said that this week that strikes against Iran will happen if Iran continues seeking NUKES. If Israel attacks it'll spark a massive war one that we will not just sit back and watch so yes we need to talk to Iran. ALright here is a stupid question for everyone how many of you have served with your nations military??

You cannot give someone freedom. To interfere in the affairs of another group of people is to deny them their right to self-determination. The idea that America is spreading "freedom" with it's "war on terror" is pure rhetorical nonsense.

As I said, shifting troops to Afghanistan makes no sense. It achieves nothing useful strategically and does nothing to improve the image of the war in the eyes of a very unsupportive populace. The government needs to pick one theatre of operations and maintain its forces there. The US military is simply not large enough to support major occupation efforts in two different countries.

You're correct, we need to talk to Iran. But the truth of the matter is that preventing nuclear proliferation is like Sisyphus pushing his boulder. We cannot control the flow of information and material which dictates who has the capacity to produce nuclear weapons. The best we can hope for is the introduction of new nuclear powers in as smooth a manner as possible.

In any case, if Israel attacked Iran there would be no war. The Iranians simply do not have the capacity to project force that far from their own borders. Especially not against a more experienced, and far more advanced, Israeli military.