PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on March 05, 2016, 07:34:36 PM
-
Watching Cruz tonight he says as President he will abolish the IRS. Also he listed a slew of agencies (Dept of Commerce, Department of Energy, etc) that he "will shut down" as President.
So how can he, if elected, accomplish these monumental task? Wouldn't he need the backing of Congress, or does he plan on attempting this using executive orders?
-
Watching Cruz tonight he says as President he will abolish the IRS. Also he listed a slew of agencies (Dept of Commerce, Department of Energy, etc) that he "will shut down" as President.
So how can he, if elected, accomplish these monumental task? Wouldn't he need the backing of Congress, or does he plan on attempting this using executive orders?
Pandering.
And people accuse Trump of hand-waving.
-
Pandering.
And people accuse Trump of hand-waving.
Actually this is a serious question. Just as all the candidates have a "tax plan", but come on, it's congress who sets the taxes, not the President. While I do agree a popular President can pursuade congress to go along with him, most of what's proposed by all candidates is simply pandering.
-
Actually this is a serious question. Just as all the candidates have a "tax plan", but come on, it's congress who sets the taxes, not the President. While I do agree a popular President can pursuade congress to go along with him, most of what's proposed by all candidates is simply pandering.
I've read Trump's tax plan https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform and I didn't see a single mention of Congress. Does he plan on doing this via executive orders?
Oh, and for people who make $50,000 and pay no tax, Trump says they will have a one page tax return that says "I win." But that's not pandering.
-
I've read Trump's tax plan https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform and I didn't see a single mention of Congress. Does he plan on doing this via executive orders?
Oh, and for people who make $50,000 and pay no tax, Trump says they will have a one page tax return that says "I win." But that's not pandering.
yep.
So how does these candidates do it? Wasn't it Rubio who said he would "tear up" Obama Care his first day in office?
-
Anybody who takes anything the candidates are saying as a potential reality of what they will do when they are president, is just not thinking well. All the candidates are pandering. That is what an election year is all about.
The only thing useful one can get out of the crap they spew is it is an indicator of where their minds are and the quality of their character. It's not meant to be taken literally, kind of like the Bible. It's more of a hypothetical question of "What would you do if you were king?" to test how they would respond.
-
yep.
So how does these candidates do it? Wasn't it Rubio who said he would "tear up" Obama Care his first day in office?
Simple, follow the Obama example.
You see with DACA, Obama declared that as President he could "prioritize" federal resources and as a result, do away with that whole "faithfully execute" clause of Article II.
President Cruz could decide that it's just too much effort to collect taxes with the IRS and direct that resources be used elsewhere.
Also note on OCare, that Obama himself has multiple times given "waivers" or delayed implementation. Why couldn't President Rubio indefinitely delay implementation?
-
Watching Cruz tonight he says as President he will abolish the IRS. Also he listed a slew of agencies (Dept of Commerce, Department of Energy, etc) that he "will shut down" as President.
So how can he, if elected, accomplish these monumental task? Wouldn't he need the backing of Congress, or does he plan on attempting this using executive orders?
Federal agencies serve at the pleasure of the President. He can shut them down legally. I'd start with Education. Remember, we are a COLLETION OF STATES FIRST.
-
Federal agencies serve at the pleasure of the President. He can shut them down legally. I'd start with Education. Remember, we are a COLLETION OF STATES FIRST.
What are you, a radical right wing Constitutionalist? Or a RACIST!!!! ;)
-
What are you, a radical right wing Constitutionalist? Or a RACIST!!!! ;)
I deal in lead friend. ;D ;D ;D
-
Federal agencies serve at the pleasure of the President. He can shut them down legally. I'd start with Education. Remember, we are a COLLETION OF STATES FIRST.
So what happens to all the laws that are on the books that these agencies abide by and write regulations on? Does the President single handed declare all of these laws to be removed?
-
. Why couldn't President Rubio indefinitely delay implementation?
Rubio said he would "tear up" the ACA. How does a President take a law, passed by Congress and signed into law by a previous President and simply abolish it?
-
Rubio said he would "tear up" the ACA. How does a President take a law, passed by Congress and signed into law by a previous President and simply abolish it?
How does a President simply refuse to enforce immigration laws that have been passed by congress and signed into law by previous Presidents?
-
How does a President simply refuse to enforce immigration laws that have been passed by congress and signed into law by previous Presidents?
By having a Speaker and a Congress that simply won't stand up to him, along with a Senate Majority Leader who is a wimp.
-
By having a Speaker and a Congress that simply won't stand up to him, along with a Senate Majority Leader who is a wimp.
Completely agree. However, I would be very curious to hear what you believe they should have done?
-
Completely agree. However, I would be very curious to hear what you believe they should have done?
Congress holds the power of the purse. By simply threatening to defund several programs of the President they could have made him back off his lax attitude on immigration. Also they could defund the million$ that the Administration is spending on illegal immigrants to harbor and aid them.
-
Congress holds the power of the purse. By simply threatening to defund several programs of the President they could have made him back off his lax attitude on immigration. Also they could defund the million$ that the Administration is spending on illegal immigrants to harbor and aid them.
Based on your reply, you have your answer. With a "Team R" congress", a Team R President can do whatever he wishes with O-Care.
-
Based on your reply, you have your answer. With a "Team R" congress", a Team R President can do whatever he wishes with O-Care.
Maybe, maybe not. The trouble is the Republicans have held Congress since 2012 and the Senate since 2014. The R Congress could have easily defunded ACA but lacks the political will. The R Senate is lead by a wimp who lets Harry Reid remain in charge.
Fast forward to Jan 20, 2017: If a President Cruz is in office, do you think the Congress or Senate (if they are retained by the Republicans) will go along with wide sweeping changes proposed by the President? Remember the individuals in Congress and the Senate have contributors to answer to and they must face re election as well. Also remember that Cruz is very unpopular in the present Senate and not held in high regard by the Congress either.
Now replace that with a President Trump. Again, I believe you will see the same situation above, but for varying reasons.
If Hillary is elected I fully expect to see 4 more years of the same in both houses.
While we are focused on a President right now, remember there are 535 people in Washington that have a bigger impact on our lives than the guy at 1600 Pennsylvania. Voter apathy, no term limits and an approval rating of about 15% gives us a bigger problem than the presidency.
-
Maybe, maybe not. The trouble is the Republicans have held Congress since 2012 and the Senate since 2014. The R Congress could have easily defunded ACA but lacks the political will. The R Senate is lead by a wimp who lets Harry Reid remain in charge.
Fast forward to Jan 20, 2017: If a President Cruz is in office, do you think the Congress or Senate (if they are retained by the Republicans) will go along with wide sweeping changes proposed by the President? Remember the individuals in Congress and the Senate have contributors to answer to and they must face re election as well. Also remember that Cruz is very unpopular in the present Senate and not held in high regard by the Congress either.
Yes I do. I think the election of a very conservative President will give the cowards in the legislative branch a reason to find the collective backbone they have misplaced for the past 7 years.
-
Yes I do. I think the election of a very conservative President will give the cowards in the legislative branch a reason to find the collective backbone they have misplaced for the past 7 years.
Well, based on past performance I would disagree. And based upon Mr. Cruz's unpopularity among fellow law makers I don't see that happening either.
-
Well, based on past performance I would disagree. And based upon Mr. Cruz's unpopularity among fellow law makers I don't see that happening either.
We'll have to agree to disagree. We have the chance to secure both branches of government in 2017, and secure the Supreme Court for the next generation. Why in the hell would we punt that opportunity by electing Trump, or ceding the election to the idiot Clinton?
-
We'll have to agree to disagree. We have the chance to secure both branches of government in 2017, and secure the Supreme Court for the next generation. Why in the hell would we punt that opportunity by electing Trump, or ceding the election to the idiot Clinton?
Agreed on the first point, it's all a matter of perspective. On the Supreme Court nominee I think either R front runner would nominate a conservative.
One of the things Reagan did as President was to surround himself with good people to help him. It was very effective. I would think a Trump or Cruz would do the same thing rather than the way the current President has done it (having Valerie Jarrett calling all of the shots)
Time will tell.
-
Trump surrounds himself with convicted felons and mobsters.
-
Maybe, maybe not. The trouble is the Republicans have held Congress since 2012 and the Senate since 2014. The R Congress could have easily defunded ACA but lacks the political will.
They lack the will because the concept of some kind of health care reform, or relief is popular with people of all political persuasions. They know they can't just repeal it without a viable replacement ready to go. To simply go back to the way it was would not make very many Americans happy. A large number of people throughout the country want solutions, not just a wrecking ball.
Republican politicians understand this and want to get re elected, so they don't go tearing things up. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
-
They lack the will because the concept of some kind of health care reform, or relief is popular with people of all political persuasions. They know they can't just repeal it without a viable replacement ready to go. To simply go back to the way it was would not make very many Americans happy. A large number of people throughout the country want solutions, not just a wrecking ball.
Republican politicians understand this and want to get re elected, so they don't go tearing things up. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
No, they are damned if they don't. The electorate sent them to Washington in overwhelming numbers in 2010 and 2014 to stop the freaking nonsense and they acquiesced to the President and his lackeys. Ocare has never enjoy support of anything close to a majority of the electorate.
-
They lack the will because the concept of some kind of health care reform, or relief is popular with people of all political persuasions. They know they can't just repeal it without a viable replacement ready to go. To simply go back to the way it was would not make very many Americans happy. A large number of people throughout the country want solutions, not just a wrecking ball.
Republican politicians understand this and want to get re elected, so they don't go tearing things up. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
But Trump will succeed because he has the will. They'll make a movie about him and title it "Triumph of the Will"
-
They lack the will because the concept of some kind of health care reform, or relief is popular with people of all political persuasions. They know they can't just repeal it without a viable replacement ready to go. To simply go back to the way it was would not make very many Americans happy. A large number of people throughout the country want solutions, not just a wrecking ball.
Republican politicians understand this and want to get re elected, so they don't go tearing things up. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Then why have the "R's" not come up with a suitable replacement?
-
Trump surrounds himself with convicted felons and mobsters.
AuntPeggy is that you? This is the same kind of non-sequitor ad hom Seagull post she used to do.
'Gimp
-
AuntPeggy is that you? This is the same kind of non-sequitor ad hom Seagull post she used to do.
'Gimp
Ive posted actual evidence in the past.
Just check in with Lucifer, he's compiled a file on me and tried to threaten me with releasing it.
-
Ive posted actual evidence in the past.
Just check in with Lucifer, he's compiled a file on me and tried to threaten me with releasing it.
OK, so I see you make this accusation a couple times now, show me the specific post where Lucifer claims to have 'compiled a file' and is 'threatening to release it'.
As for your single post about a guy who had been convicted of a crime 20 years ago, and had served his debt to society roughly a decade before even meeting/being involved with Trump as an advisor on a project, I already replied to that.
In America any man is free to rejoin society and make his way and add value once his debt to society has been paid. Many folks who are convicted of crimes, from the banal to the terrifying go on to lead lives of significant contribution - we forgive.
'Gimp
-
OK, so I see you make this accusation a couple times now, show me the specific post where Lucifer claims to have 'compiled a file' and is 'threatening to release it'.
It's like his claim that he doesn't support Trump. Everything he does says "I'm a Trumpkin!" but he never says those words.
He started slipping things like my place of birth and my birthdate into various posts when he was lobbing his typical ad hominems at me. Basically, only way he had that was to have done a BG check on me, and that was a subtle way of threatening to dox me.
So, I called him on it. But he doesn't have the balls to follow through now.
Next he'll start talking about my hand size.
-
No, they are damned if they don't. The electorate sent them to Washington in overwhelming numbers in 2010 and 2014 to stop the freaking nonsense and they acquiesced to the President and his lackeys. Ocare has never enjoy support of anything close to a majority of the electorate.
No, they are damned if they do too. When they actually repeal the ACA and replace it with nothing, or start the haggling all over, many swing voters and dormant democrats will turn out to vote next election for whoever the Democrats will be running. They are only safe in truly red states. In the purple states they'll go down.
It's true that Obamacare has not been popular, but the concept of a federal health insurance program of some type is. The cost of healthcare, the denials of some people from healthcare insurance and the quality of what we get for our money is pretty bad. This is an issue that is non partisan. There are plenty of conservatives that can see that the medical establishment is not serving us well.
-
Then why have the "R's" not come up with a suitable replacement?
That is a damned good question!! I'd love to know. They really should come up with something and then pitch it to the people.
-
- we forgive.
'Gimp
Sure we do... unless they were a member of the "gang of eight".
-
Yep, those rascally Republicans have never had an alternative bill.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3400
-
Sure we do... unless they were a member of the "gang of eight".
Nice try, since Rubio still holds pro-amnesty views (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2gbd_hZ6uY) - he campaigned as anti-amnesty, won his election, then palled-up with the Gang of Eight and was the face of that movement - there is nothing that indicates this has substantively changed.
That is not the same as serving time and moving on, IMO.
'Gimp
-
It's true that Obamacare has not been popular, but the concept of a federal health insurance program of some type is. The cost of healthcare, the denials of some people from healthcare insurance and the quality of what we get for our money is pretty bad. This is an issue that is non partisan. There are plenty of conservatives that can see that the medical establishment is not serving us well.
It shouldn't be, but it is. Healthcare is not a right and you won't find it in the Constitution. It is not the responsibility of government to provide healthcare. Unfortunately the Democrats, through years of legislation and freebies, have made it appear as though the healthcare somehow is a right.
-
For the umpteen millionth time - health insurance and access to health care are not the same.
And as others pointed out, the Republican Congress has actually made several suggestions for replacing Obamacare, along with countless votes to repeal (ignored in the Senate).
'Gimp
-
For the umpteen millionth time - health insurance and access to health care are not the same.
And as others pointed out, the Republican Congress has actually made several suggestions for replacing Obamacare, along with countless votes to repeal (ignored in the Senate).
'Gimp
I'm not disputing the difference, just pointing out the fact that healthcare is not a right like the Democrats want to make it seem. The President did veto a bill that would have repealed Obamacare and defunded Planned Parenthood.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politics/obama-vetoes-obamacare-repeal-bill/
-
I'm not disputing the difference, just pointing out the fact that healthcare is not a right like the Democrats want to make it seem. The President did veto a bill that would have repealed Obamacare and defunded Planned Parenthood.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politics/obama-vetoes-obamacare-repeal-bill/
I should have clarified, not criticizing you LevelWing, just the seemingly endless confusion and conflation of the two.
'Gimp
-
Also note on OCare, that Obama himself has multiple times given "waivers" or delayed implementation to his political cronies.
FTFY
-
It's true that Obamacare has not been popular, but the concept of a federal health insurance program of some type is. The cost of healthcare, the denials of some people from healthcare insurance and the quality of what we get for our money is pretty bad. This is an issue that is non partisan. There are plenty of conservatives that can see that the medical establishment is not serving us well.
There's already a federal insurance program called Medicare. That could have been expanded relatively easily. Also, Trump is 100% correct that removal oft he interstate barrier would open the market to more competitive pricing.
This boot on your neck mandate, I mean "tax", is unconstitutional on the face of it- regardless of Chief Patsy Roberts "opinion". There! I said it!
-
There's already a federal insurance program called Medicare. That could have been expanded relatively easily. Also, Trump is 100% correct that removal oft he interstate barrier would open the market to more competitive pricing.
This boot on your neck mandate, I mean "tax", is unconstitutional on the face of it- regardless of Chief Patsy Roberts "opinion". There! I said it!
Roberts was compromised somehow. Blackmail, money, who knows, but he was involved in the conspiracy. Why are the ones appointed by Democrats lock step liberal/progressives yet the ones appointed by Republicans wishy washy?