The role of the President of the USA

[M.M. 700]

All this talk about the President. I am not into politics that much, BUT really isn't the President "basiclly" just the front man.

Doesn't he have to go threw the "house" for a vote or others to sign off on his ideas? And isn't the house reps the same reps that have been there, some for years prior? New President doesn't mean the whole Whitehouse/staff/othe politions...

So for conversation, USA gets a President that has these ideas/laws/whatever. He can't just pull them out of his a$$, can he? He has to go threw the some of the same peeps sitting on the boards or house? If so what can he (himself) override for jugdement?


And you also hear in interviews from previous Presdients, "I wanted to do (insert whatever) but the house voted against it" I do know believe what you want when it comes to politics/words said after the fact.

As I said I dont know alot about the whole politics thing. I do care about the future of the USA. Just an honest question.

 

[H2SNOW]

I hereby formly introduce you to Barry Husein Obama ...............

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28344

you might be more inclinded to refer to him as "Satan" , "The Devil","Lucifer"......"The One"..."The Fallen Angel"....."Belzebub".........etc

just wait and see ..........

 

[Skinner]

The difference is that the Dems now control congress. It will be a lot easier now.

 

[Wade]

First Fact, if the Republicans own the house, or the senate, or the presidency, anything that goes wrong will be blamed on the Republicans. Right now, everything is blamed on Bush.

Now that Obama owns the presidency, and the dems own the senate, and the house, they'll have to blame Bush's previous term. Their kinda in a pickle though, that only works for about 4 years, then the sheep wake up.

Yes, the president can't get anything done without the Senate or House. The president does have some powers established to him, by the senate. You might have heard of presidential executive orders. These are powers usually misused by the president, but given by the Senate. Clinton used them, Bush used them also. Bush initially use executive orders to reverse Clinton executive orders. Some of them he didn't have to reverse, just cancel, because the order hadn't been on the books for 60 days. Bush has also done his own. Expect Obama to use executive orders to shut down drilling, and basically reverse anything Bush did.

But, if money is involved, the legislative (congress, the House and the Senate) control the expenditure and flow of money. AKA, the purse strings. Congress could shut off war funds, thereby forcing the military to abandon Iraq.

When a bill is created in a congressional subcommittee, it is drafted. Someone sponsors the bill. And, he generally adds some pork. Then it goes to the floor to be voted on. Pork is added as it transfers to the floor (not quite sure how they get by with this). Then some congressmen refuse to vote for the bill unless they get something. So, it goes back to the subcommittee and more pork (called earmarks now) is added for that senator and others until they have enough votes. Lots of times they add enough earmarks to ensure they have enough votes, before voting on the bill. Then finally, it passes the floor of the House and the Senate. These are two different bills, passed by two different branches of congress. So, they go into negotiations to settle the differences (the bill goes to conference, the conference committee) between the House and Senate versions. Then they combine the bills and all kinda nod it through, after settling their differences. The bill then goes to the president to be signed. If he vetoes it, it goes back to the Senate, if the Senate AND House feels they don't agree with the president, they can override the president's veto. Generally with a 66% vote override vote. Or, the bill can go back to subcommittee to be changed and try again later. If the president signs, or Congress overrides a veto, the bill is law.

You might have heard of the Senate Democratic supermajority. Basically, a senator can talk (debate) for as long as he wants. He has the floor until he stops speaking. This is known as a filibuster. It generally takes a 60% vote, to shut him up. A Democratic 60% Senate, is filibuster proof, at least for the Democrats.

 

[M.M. 700]

First Fact, if the Republicans own the house, or the senate, or the presidency, anything that goes wrong will be blamed on the Republicans. Right now, everything is blamed on Bush.

Now that Obama owns the presidency, and the dems own the senate, and the house, they'll have to blame Bush's previous term. Their kinda in a pickle though, that only works for about 4 years, then the sheep wake up.

Yes, the president can't get anything done without the Senate or House. The president does have some powers established to him, by the senate. You might have heard of presidential executive orders. These are powers usually misused by the president, but given by the Senate. Clinton used them, Bush used them also. Bush initially use executive orders to reverse Clinton executive orders. Some of them he didn't have to reverse, just cancel, because the order hadn't been on the books for 60 days. Bush has also done his own. Expect Obama to use executive orders to shut down drilling, and basically reverse anything Bush did.

But, if money is involved, the legislative (congress, the House and the Senate) control the expenditure and flow of money. AKA, the purse strings. Congress could shut off war funds, thereby forcing the military to abandon Iraq.

When a bill is created in a congressional subcommittee, it is drafted. Someone sponsors the bill. And, he generally adds some pork. Then it goes to the floor to be voted on. Pork is added as it transfers to the floor (not quite sure how they get by with this). Then some congressmen refuse to vote for the bill unless they get something. So, it goes back to the subcommittee and more pork (called earmarks now) is added for that senator and others until they have enough votes. Lots of times they add enough earmarks to ensure they have enough votes, before voting on the bill. Then finally, it passes the floor of the House and the Senate. These are two different bills, passed by two different branches of congress. So, they go into negotiations to settle the differences (the bill goes to conference, the conference committee) between the House and Senate versions. Then they combine the bills and all kinda nod it through, after settling their differences. The bill then goes to the president to be signed. If he vetoes it, it goes back to the Senate, if the Senate AND House feels they don't agree with the president, they can override the president's veto. Generally with a 66% vote override vote. Or, the bill can go back to subcommittee to be changed and try again later. If the president signs, or Congress overrides a veto, the bill is law.

You might have heard of the Senate Democratic supermajority. Basically, a senator can talk (debate) for as long as he wants. He has the floor until he stops speaking. This is known as a filibuster. It generally takes a 60% vote, to shut him up. A Democratic 60% Senate, is filibuster proof, at least for the Democrats.

All sounds shady to me.

 

[TheFlyingFynn]

Thats because it is shady. Anyone with a grain of common sense can see that the process was only setup to further political agendas and lobbyist dreams. If it was set up for the people it would be simple and easy to understand. This keeps the control in the hands of those in the KNOW and out of the average citizen. Which is why the 2 party system and the insane rules and costs associated with doing anything in govt.

This is why we dont have a fair "flat tax" and simple tax law. I give the IRS as my second example of the govt. putting the screws to the people. What is wrong with everyone legal or rich single or married paying the same. And only paying once. I cant believe we pay tax on stuff after we already paid uncle sam. Our country is run like a back alley bookie runs his buisness ro the Mob for that matter.

3rd example is the banking industry again the interest and the insane fees that are charges for atm withdrawls when they are using your money to make money then charge you a fee for every little thing. Again whoever past those laws did not have the people in mind.

I personally hope the President does something so shocking it throws us into a revolution because we need it. I really dont care if it red or blue, we need to restructure. Just like the french, english and romans did many times.

 

[Wade]

I just explained the simple version of the progression of a bill. You should see all the back room deals that are cut, just so a bill can go through. The committee rules alone would astound the average person. The third parties, that get to sit at the table, and request pork, is crazy. They've actually had military employees, or lobbyist, or special interest groups (read environmentalist) write line item language and insert it into a bill before and after subcommittee.

What needs to happen, is earmarks and all pork needs to disappear. Earmarks are used by the each party, to force the party members to vote along party lines. This is why nearly every bill comes down to party lines. It's criminal. A person should be elected on what he believes, and his party affiliation should just tell you whether they stand to the left or the right. Then they should vote for their constituents, not the party boss.

There needs to be a way to rid bills of riders and line item pork, without jamming congress with bills for small stuff.

 

[xrated]

well put wade.

3rd example is the banking industry again the interest and the insane fees that are charges for atm withdrawls when they are using your money to make money then charge you a fee for every little thing. -right but the bank is offering you a service. You want cash, your at the bar not the bank....so you give the bank 2 dollars to get 20 out of your account. If you went to the bank first you wouldn't have paid 2 for 20. Or just use charge free ATMs.

 

[Bauer]

3rd example is the banking industry again the interest and the insane fees that are charges for atm withdrawls when they are using your money to make money then charge you a fee for every little thing. .

Lol.. R u serious?

1) The money is a product you don't get it for free. Interest is a usage fee.
2) Money sitting in an ATM is doing nothing but getting dusty until you need it, it can't be invested or do anything but sit there and wait. ATMs cost banks WAY more money than they make.. It's a built in loss for your needs.

3) If you sit and think about it money is cheap. Check out the markup on other things you buy, borrow and sell.

The only thing about banks is that they have to disclose the cost before you get anything. But you still want/need it..

You don't like the $2 fee... Cancell the transaction. It's that simple.

Not looking to make a fuss but most will ***** about a $2 fee vs. the thousands your sled dealer makes off you.. But you want it right.. So it's ok..

 

[TheFlyingFynn]

OK I was using the atm fee as an example. There are numerous fees involved with banking that by all rights should be covered by the bank holding your deposit and then using fractional lending to lend your money out and at oh say 20 to 1 ratio. All the interest they collect on that other $19 should more then cover a deposit holders atm charges, monthly service fee, additional check charge over your monthly amount of checks. Remember when banks paid you interest for keeping your money in their banks.

PS. I am one of those extreme anti banking business men that has no debt what so ever. I own it all and if I was to need a loan I would go to an individual not an institution because bigger typically never means better it just means bigger and harder to fight if an issue arises.

But I suppose you think that charging 21% interest on anything is fair. Thats were I differ from the sheep.

Do I own a business yes. Do have a business account yes. Do I think it right no. Do i think because I am doing ok with the way the system is set up that it shouldn't be changes NO. I think people have a lot of nerve to but people in jail at the rate we do here in the states. When the real crooks are the ones in shiny suits sitting behind desks making deals like compounded daily interest for credit cards. I myself provide a service where i give a product at the end of the service. So I actually welcome the barter system to come back and get rid of all the paper pushers and middle men that are bleeding this country dry.

But I will get off the soap box now. If you want to think the bank and politicians are giving you what your paying for. Well I got some ocean front property in AZ for ya, comes with snow too.

I for one am tired of spending my money on a piss poor setup and people that natural selection would have weeded out a long time ago.

 

[TheFlyingFynn]

Sorry did not mean to hijack the thead.

Your right he is just the front man for the most part.

Fynn

 

[M.M. 700]

Sorry did not mean to hijack the thead.

Your right he is just the front man for the most part.

Fynn

And I don't think alot of people realize that at all..

"They" blame everything on the Pres. which is how it is set up to be, by the struture of the Goverment. And is (in my eyes) part of the Presidents job discription.

But the problem is what has been talked about in a few post up. It's more the "suits" fattening there own pockets, and the pockets of the peeps around them. An most of those guys, sit and make it work for them, under the spot light.

THAT is why some of the USA problems will not get fixed by a new front man AKA The President.

 

[Ollie]

And I don't think alot of people realize that at all..

"They" blame everything on the Pres. which is how it is set up to be, by the struture of the Goverment. And is (in my eyes) part of the Presidents job discription.

Actually no.
When Clinton was the pres, everything was blamed on the senate and house since they were the ones controlled by the republicans.

The day Bush (2) took over it was exposed that the economy was crashing. Did you hear Clinton get the blame? Nope, it was instantly Bush's fault.

The last 2 years the house and senate were controlled by the Dems. They controlled the economy. They screwed it up, who got the blame??
The Pres.
Why?
He was a republican.
The press HATES conservatives. That is why the republicans ALWAYS get the blame. The press is even admitting they are biased. They admit they gave Obama a free ride, their reasoning. They didn't want a conservative in the white house.

We did this in the 70's.
We will now do it again and a whole new set of generations will learn the lesson of liberal control and the costs it has assosicated with it. Only this time, the liberals are talking about how the constitution is just a piece of paper that needs to be put in a museum and otherwise ignored.
Stand by.
You aint seen nothing yet.
It will be fun to see how the press spins the next 2 years. The dems are in total control, they can only blame the "evil conservatives" for so long before even the most liberal morons have to admit they were wrong.

We need a third party.

 

[CCRider]

“The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”- ABRAHAM LINCOLN (17 September 1859)

And what a bunch of perverts 'they' are....