Vetoes

[KenH]

Why not?

I change my answer to undecided. If Arkansas ever decides to try to adopt it, then I will look into it more.

 

[KenH]

AS 2044 hrs (GMT) The National Debt is: 32.835 trillion dollars

Would you like to see the daily treasures report?

As of the end of August 2024, the national debt is $32.914 trillion.

The national debt to the penny: Debt to the Penny | U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data

 

[KenH]

Otherwise there is no power in his position to be part of legislating laws

There isn't supposed to be. The Congress is to legislate, including spending money and passing laws. One of the main problems in the MASSIVE increase in the size, reach, and scope of the federal government(besides the Congress MASSIVELY spending more money than there are revenues to support it) is the MASSIVE use of executive orders by the executive branch, which Congress goes along with so that they don't have to be responsible - if an action by the executive branch works out, then they can jump on the bandwagon, if it doesn't work out, then they can criticize it.

 

[Salty]

Wow - off by 79 billion

Lets see how long does it take the US govt to spen 79 billion!??
What a few hours, maybe a couple of days

 

[KenH]

Wow - off by 79 billion

Lets see how long does it take the US govt to spen 79 billion!??
What a few hours, maybe a couple of days

It is reasonable to expect that within the month of September, maybe even this week, that the United States of America will "celebrate" reaching $33 trillion in national debt.

 

[canadyjd]

The way that Congress spends money (regardless of Party), I would rather have some line item to be given a veto, we need to cut spending.

AS 2044 hrs (GMT) The National Debt is: 32.835 trillion dollars

Would you like to see the daily treasures report?

Personally, I believe the only way to stop the out of control spending is a constitutional amendment that declares the Federal Government……

1. May only tax individuals up to 10%, corporations up to 15%. It can be less but not more unless approved by 2/3 cote in house and senate and then for only 1 year.

2. Prohibit the practice of “baseline budgeting” (which means the last passed bill is the baseline and nothing can be cut from it.)

3. The federal government must produce a balanced budget every year unless waived by 2/3 vote both houses and then for only 1 year.

4. The Federal Reserve is abolished. All monetary policy is controlled by the Treasury Department i.e. the Executive Branch

peace to you

 

[Salty]

What need to happen is top a lot of unnecessary (and unconstitutional ) spending

 

[KenH]

When the Federal Reserve was created in 1913, the national debt was around $3 billion.

So, during the journey from a gold standard monetary system to a fiat monetary system, the national debt has gone from $3 billion to $33 trillion; and the value of a dollar bill in 1913 is now $.03 (Cost of Living Calculator: What is Your Dollar Worth Today?)

So, all in all, it is quite clear that the Federal Reserve has been a total failure - it has destroyed the value of the U.S. dollar and accommodated the MASSIVE profligacy of the federal government.

 

[Piper]

There isn't supposed to be. The Congress is to legislate, including spending money and passing laws. One of the main problems in the MASSIVE increase in the size, reach, and scope of the federal government(besides the Congress MASSIVELY spending more money than there are revenues to support it) is the MASSIVE use of executive orders by the executive branch, which Congress goes along with so that they don't have to be responsible - if an action by the executive branch works out, then they can jump on the bandwagon, if it doesn't work out, then they can criticize it.

There is, as the Executive, he is to be one of the checks and balances that stops legislatures from over-reach.

 

[Piper]

What need to happen is top a lot of unnecessary (and unconstitutional ) spending

If Only!!!!!!

 

[KenH]

There is, as the Executive, he is to be one of the checks and balances that stops legislatures from over-reach.

I agree. However, the president already has the veto power. He doesn't need the line item veto to carry out his constitutional duties(not that the presidents after Grover Cleveland have cared all that much about the federal government adhering to its constitutional powers).

 

[Salty]

I agree. However, the president already has the veto power. He doesn't need the line item veto to carry out his constitutional duties(not that the presidents after Grover Cleveland have cared all that much about the federal government adhering to its constitutional powers).

What part of AM/FM radio do you not understand???

 

[KenH]

What part of AM/FM radio do you not understand???

Hmmm...AM/FM - seems like I have heard of that before - long, long ago. While I'm thinking about it, I'll listen to my SiriusXM app on my iPhone.

 

[OnlyaSinner]

Why do you think it is not good? Do you want only one of the major party candidates to always win?

That would not be my concern. Rather, it would be a scenario where one major party nominee is liberal and the other party's nominee is conservative, and a conservative 3rd-party candidate takes enough votes to swing the win to the liberal candidate.

And without watching the video that Salty posted, the idea smells a bit like Maine's ranked-choice voting, and because the state's voting machinery is not all computer-driven, the "instant" runoff is anything but. Installing that system for nation-wide elections would require some heavy-duty software development with ultra-powerful security. Not impossible but the current track record for related software development does not give me optimism.
Personally, I don't use the ranked choice, voting only for my 1st choice. The probability is very low but not zero that my 2nd or 3rd choice could result in defeating my 1st choice.

 

[Salty]

...Personally, I don't use the ranked choice, voting only for my 1st choice. The probability is very low but not zero that my 2nd or 3rd choice could result in defeating my 1st choice.

If ranked choice voting was available - then possibly more people would run for office.
And if it did happen to go nation-wide - the system would still be the responsibility of the State/commonwealth.

Also you mentioned if 2 conservatives were to run against one liberal -
However - supposed it is one liberal, one conservative and a libertarian!
Or to add to the mix - an extremist left winger and an extremist right winger - for a total of 5 candidates.......

 

[KenH]

Rather, it would be a scenario where one major party nominee is liberal and the other party's nominee is conservative, and a conservative 3rd-party candidate takes enough votes to swing the win to the liberal candidate.

In that case, then, I would suggest that candidates do what they did before the 21st century, try to persuade as many voters as possible to vote for them, instead of just trying to gin up the voters in their narrow base of support.

 

[OnlyaSinner]

In that case, then, I would suggest that candidates do what they did before the 21st century, try to persuade as many voters as possible to vote for them, instead of just trying to gin up the voters in their narrow base of support.

Agreed, and though the negative campaign ads have reached new lows this century, there were plenty in the 19th and 20th. One example in memory was Nixon-Humphrey in 1968. Late in the campaign the Humphrey folks ran an ad showing Nixon's face followed by pictures of nuclear mushroom clouds. In 1964 some folks were saying if one voted (I was too young) for Goldwater we would be in a war within 6 months. A few weeks after the Tonkin Gulf incident, my dad said, "I did, and we are!"

 

[Salty]

Agreed, and though the negative campaign ads have reached new lows this century, !"

(bold my emphasis)

And why do politicians use negative campaigns ads - BECAUSE they are effective!!

And during the Goldwater campaign- the Dems showed a Social Security being cut off.
and virtually every campaign since the D's try to say the R's want to end SS!

Click for you-tube

 

[KenH]

And during the Goldwater campaign- the Dems showed a Social Security being cut off.
and virtually every campaign since the D's try to say the R's want to end SS!

If I were to be made king, I would immediately ban candidates being on the ballot with a party designation. I think candidates should have to stand on their own two hind legs instead of using a party label to get people to vote for them.

 

[Salty]

If I were to be made king, I would immediately ban candidates being on the ballot with a party designation. I think candidates should have to stand on their own two hind legs instead of using a party label to get people to vote for them.

I praise the Lord that you are not King!

Would you also ban churches with a denomination label, as you believe that every local church should stand on their own two hind legs instead of using a denomination to get people to come to their church?