Dictator Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter Shenanigans
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 371
  • Views: 9K
  • Politics 
lawtig02 said:
1. The money Congress approves has to be spent though. It can’t just be withheld.

2. Once commitments are made by the agencies, they generally can’t be rescinded. Especially for political reasons.
Click to expand...
1. Impoundment, which has been around for centuries, allows the president to refuse to spend money, right?

2. If we have a legal agreement/contract, I would agree. If not, why can't Trump legally impound money? Also, does the president have the power to stop funding, using impoundment, even if there is a contract in place?
 
ZenMode said:
"Interviews with more than two dozen administration officials, government contractors and activists – as well as court filings in lawsuits alleging the government is failing to fulfill funding lawfully appropriated by Congress"

Congress approves an amount of money and the Executive branch/individual departments like USAID, decides who it goes to. In other words, Congress gives a blanket $5 billion to USAID and the President/USAID decides which entities receive or don't receive money, but Congress doesn't specify, in the end, which individual entities receive money. So it wasn't Congress' ridiculous idea to fund musicals in Columbia, or whatever it was.
Click to expand...
I’d rather have musicals in Columbia (sic) than $500 million in Tesla trucks. Give me “Damn Yankees” in South Carolina any day.
 
Duke Mu said:
Libtard Rag - WSJ: Does Trump understand money?

Trumpflation


DANGER: Orange CHILD in the Oval Office...no, not X!
Click to expand...
Also fuck the WSJ editorial board - "hey, the guy we have been fluffing for 12 years is going to break everything, why did you voters let that happen? he was supposed to give us rich what we wanted, not take it all from us, how could you poors do this? "


fuck them
 
lawtig02 said:
Nope.

Click to expand...
I think there's a difference between not spending and changing where it is spent. For example, rather than waste $70k on musicals or a million on providing Sesame Street for Iranian children, it could be spent on something useful because Congress doesn't specify "spend xxx on musicals, spend xxx on cartoons for Iranian children", right? The specifics on how money is spent is done by the individual departments like USAID or DoD, etc.
 
Healing said:
I have confidence in very little these days, but I do have confidence that when Shena leaves (I'll believe it when I see it, MFer!), we'll have lost our one and only eye shitter.
Click to expand...
His threats even included dining on some choice Indian Curry dishes the night before the big shits... (figured I'd throw that out there after breakfast time and before lunch... didn't want to put anyone off of their repast.)
 
Centerpiece said:
It all seems to be coming to fruition for the Maga Republicans. If it all goes like planned, there’s a good chance the wailing, weeping and gnashing of teeth this time next year will make Shenanigan’s cussing and “shit-face” comments appear tame.
Click to expand...
I agree
 
altmin said:
Also fuck the WSJ editorial board - "hey, the guy we have been fluffing for 12 years is going to break everything, why did you voters let that happen? he was supposed to give us rich what we wanted, not take it all from us, how could you poors do this? "

fuck them
Click to expand...
Agree 100%. And let's not forget that it's owned by the same immigrant-turned-us-citizen shitstain who owns Foxaganda "News"/"News"corp.
 
Healing said:
I have confidence in very little these days, but I do have confidence that when Shena leaves (I'll believe it when I see it, MFer!), we'll have lost our one and only eye shitter.
Click to expand...
I'll be lurking with less specifics. Never let the rubes know your plans.

Leaving was a hollow promise, I'm bored
 
ZenMode said:
1. Impoundment, which has been around for centuries, allows the president to refuse to spend money, right?

2. If we have a legal agreement/contract, I would agree. If not, why can't Trump legally impound money? Also, does the president have the power to stop funding, using impoundment, even if there is a contract in place?
Click to expand...
Impoundment has not been around in the US for centuries. The concept comes from the British royalty. The reason that impoundment is not workable in our system is that it makes it impossible for Congress to legislate on a bipartisan basis.

For instance, if Trump were to be allowed to impound allocated funds he doesn't like, then how the fuck are Democrats supposed to negotiate? They can't get anything they want, because Trump won't spend it. And imagine what would happen with a Democratic Congress, or a split Congress. The legislature would lose all power, and the system would break completely.

Anyway, the constitution is very clear on this point. It's not an open question, except maybe in the hands of a lawless Supreme Court that pays little attention to the actual text or history of the constitution.
 
ZenMode said:
I think there's a difference between not spending and changing where it is spent. For example, rather than waste $70k on musicals or a million on providing Sesame Street for Iranian children, it could be spent on something useful because Congress doesn't specify "spend xxx on musicals, spend xxx on cartoons for Iranian children", right? The specifics on how money is spent is done by the individual departments like USAID or DoD, etc.
Click to expand...
There is no difference. If Congress allocates money for musicals, then the executive branch has to fund the musicals.

Congress sometimes allocates money in bulk, and instructs the agencies to dole it out. In that sense, you're right that the executive branch can choose how the money is spent. But that's a function of Congress delegating its power, not an inherent function of the executive branch. And Congress also sets terms as to how the agencies spend the money allocated in bulk. I don't actually know if USAID grants are subject to the Administrative Procedure Act, but certainly the rulemaking is and Trump hasn't followed that.

This is also why Congress has historically established independent agencies. Recently, the Supreme Court sort of decided out of thin air based on nothing that independent agencies were unlawful -- except the Federal Reserve, which tells you all you need to know about the principles at work, or rather their absence. The Fed has no greater claim on independence than the CFPB, but the Justices like the former and not the latter so you know.

Also note that the Supreme Court is hearing a case on the non-delegation doctrine. This is not a thing that exists, but Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch (especially Gorsuch) really want to make it one. I don't know about the other three. If the non-delegation doctrine is established, it would neuter much of the ability of the executive branch to choose how to spend the money.
 
Impoundment has not been around in the US for centuries. The concept comes from the British royalty. The reason that impoundment is not workable in our system is that it makes it impossible for Congress to legislate on a bipartisan basis.[/QUOTE]Ok... over a century.

Instances of presidential impoundment date back to the early nineteenth century, but Presidents typically sought accommodation rather than confrontation with Congress.4 In the 1950s and 1960s, disputes over the impoundment authority resulted from the refusal of successive Presidents to fund certain weapons systems to the full extent authorized by Congress. These confrontations between the President and Congress revolved around the constitutional role of commander-in-chief and tended to focus on relatively narrow issues of weapons procurement. President Johnson made broader use of his power to impound by ordering the deferral of billions of dollars of spending during the Vietnam war in an effort to restrain inflationary pressures in the economy. While some impoundments during these periods were motivated by policy concerns, they typically involved temporary spending delays, with the President acting in consultation with congressional leaders, so that a protracted confrontation between the branches was avoided.

budgetcounsel.com

§015i.01 (CB) Brief History of Impoundment

Cyclopedia of Congressional Budget Law History of Impoundment CRS – Impoundment: A Brief History Impoundment History The following is an excerpt from the CRS Report Item Veto and Expanded Imp…
budgetcounsel.com budgetcounsel.com

For instance, if Trump were to be allowed to impound allocated funds he doesn't like, then how the fuck are Democrats supposed to negotiate? They can't get anything they want, because Trump won't spend it. And imagine what would happen with a Democratic Congress, or a split Congress. The legislature would lose all power, and the system would break completely.

Anyway, the constitution is very clear on this point. It's not an open question, except maybe in the hands of a lawless Supreme Court that pays little attention to the actual text or history of the constitution.
Click to expand...

Like I mentioned earlier, the requirement to spend/loan money allocated by Congress isn't the same as a requirement to spend it SPECIFICALLY on musicals, cartoons, condoms, etc aren't the same thing. Again, I really doubt Congress says to the DoD "You have to buy 5 Apache helicopters from Boeing. 400 machine guns from Sig Sauer", etc.

Congress gives USAID a budget and USAID decides how it's used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top