Originally Posted by Bonnie
It takes both houses of Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives, to pass a federal budget, or, a continuing resolution when they've failed to pass a budget, in order to keep the federal government running. Currently, the Democrats have the majority in the Senate and the Republicans have the majority in the House. Now throw the President into the mix.
Unfortunately they use the threat of a gov't shut-down (and the debt ceiling which is coming up next) to see which side will blink first. They didn't come to an agreement before time ran out so the shut-down began. Mike explained about essential and non-essential...
2) The problem for the American people is we have no immediate recourse (that I know of?) we can use to punish these bastards until they come up for re-election and they know it!
1) I guess the problem for any British Person to understand is that there is a Difference between Leader of The Party, and President, for the political party that wins the ellection.
In England the person incharge of the Political Party automatically, by default, becomes the Prime Minister if his party get more votes from the public.
Now that doesnt happen with the US...and thats why the parties pick candidates, coz it isnt automatic, who would become president. This complicates things....because in England its not just the prime minister who wins the ellection...its the entire party.
Thats not true of the American system...The Democrat Party is NOT a winner in "Government" it is still mixed up in two houses with maybe more of another party. Essentially, there is no "Government party" and no "Opposition" there is just always a Split Government...and a President....Technically speaking, that means that the Office of the President, cant actually be a Government Office, as the Government never changes. If that were untrue, it would be impossible, EVER for any independant to even run.
So I suppose because you separate your Head of State, from your Government...he is powerless to do anything dictatorial. Which is good in theory...but its taken to far, when as a man in power, he cant even be permitted to form his own budgit, not even if the alternative is that the Government runs out of money and stops working.
The obvious way around this, is to actually say that the role of formulating a Budgit should litterally be a creation of the President and his Cabinet Ministers. In that manner, the president, and which ever party he comes from, set the budgit, without interference from houses where, despite theoretically being in power...they might be a minority. I happen to think that is more sensible, then the alternative you are all living through now. Though the one thing that makes impossible, is for any vote, in any house, on the budgit...and my guess is, that would not go down well with anyone in any of those houses regardless of party association...noone wants to be oppressed
2) Ive always said about Democrasy...and Egypt found this out the hard way. its the best, possibly, of a bad bunch. You ellect someone who is a trained liar, on a number of false promises, where often semantics are the onlything separating different view points. Your minority could be half the country, minus one person, and once in, you have no power over them until the next time you go to the polls...which could be years.
So...I dont think that democrasy removes the liklihood of a dictator being ellected, and then the people not being able to legitamately remove him, and then he goes an ammends laws to stop himself being able to leave office.
After all. Even Adolf Hitler was legitamately Ellected as Chancellor in Germany. This hatred of Supremecy, and Divine Right of Kingship, that created cultures like the American one, designed, to try and stop that being a possiblity, only reduces the liklihood. Usually, as we have seen since World War Two...all Democrasy becomes, is a short term ellected dictator. Some worse then others.