View Single Post
Old 10-03-2013, 11:29 PM
Bonnie Bonnie is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Where the bluebonnets bloom
Posts: 6,705

Originally Posted by Tyburn View Post
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.
Depending on which party ends up getting the majority of votes in an election, you can end up with one party holding a majority in both houses of Congress or end up with each party holding a majority in either house, like now. During the first two years of Obama's first term, Democrats held the majority in both houses. This is how we ended up with Obamacare. In 2010, with the rise of the Tea Party, Republicans won back the House of Representatives, but the Dems held on to the Senate. I think most Americans feel it's better when there is a "balance" where one party holds the White House and the other party holds both houses of Congress rather than where one party holds all the power, or, the type of power divide we have now where there is constant gridlock and nothing gets done which is why Congress has such a low approval rating.

As for the federal budget (or a continuing resolution), the President, as well as Congress, play a part in the process:

United States Federal Budget
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Budget of the United States Government often begins as the President's proposal to the U.S. Congress which recommends funding levels for the next fiscal year, beginning October 1. However, Congress is the body required by law to pass a budget annually and to submit the budget passed by both houses to the President for signature. Congressional decisions are governed by rules and legislation regarding the federal budget process. Budget committees set spending limits for the House and Senate committees and for Appropriations subcommittees, which then approve individual appropriations bills to allocate funding to various federal programs.

If Congress fails to pass an annual budget, a series of Appropriations bills must be passed as "stop gap" measures. After Congress approves an appropriations bill, it is sent to the President, who may sign it into law, or may veto it (as he would a budget when passed by the Congress). A vetoed bill is sent back to Congress, which can pass it into law with a two-thirds majority in each chamber. Congress may also combine all or some appropriations bills into an omnibus reconciliation bill. In addition, the president may request and the Congress may pass supplemental appropriations bills or emergency supplemental appropriations bills.

Continuing Resolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A continuing resolution is a type of appropriations legislation used by the United States Congress to fund government agencies if a formal appropriations bill has not been signed into law by the end of the Congressional fiscal year. The legislation takes the form of a joint resolution, and provides funding for existing federal programs at current, reduced, or expanded levels.

Federal budget procedure

The federal government of the United States operates on a budget calendar that runs from October 1 through September 30. Each year, the Congress authorizes each department, agency, or program to spend a specific amount of money. This money may not be spent, however, until it has been appropriated for a given purpose. The Department of Justice, for example, is authorized to spend $22.2 billion each year, but may not do so until Congress passes a law that says so. [1]

Under the Constitution, only Congress may appropriate money for the operation of the federal government. Therefore, Congress is required to pass separate spending bills every year to fund the operation of government. If no such bill becomes law, government functions cease immediately and all functions of the government cease eventually, as required by the Antideficiency Act, except as excepted by the Act. In order to prevent the interruption of government services, Congress and the President will often pass a continuing resolution. This authorizes government agencies to fund their agencies at the current level until either the resolution expires, or an appropriations bill is passed. Like all acts of Congress, a continuing resolution must be passed by both houses of Congress, or passed with a majority large enough to override a Presidential veto.

Advantages and disadvantages

Standoffs between the President and Congress or between political parties, elections, and more urgent legislative matters complicate the budget process, frequently making the continuing resolution a common occurrence in American government.[2] They allow the government to take its time making difficult fiscal decisions.

Federal agencies are disrupted by the periods of reduced funding. With non-essential operations suspended, many agencies are forced to interrupt research projects, training programs, or other important functions. Its impact on day-to-day management can be severe, costing some employees the equivalent of several months' time.[citation needed]


The most significant incident involving continuing resolutions occurred in 1995, when a standoff between then Democratic President Bill Clinton and Congressional Republicans led to the shutdown of the federal government.[3] Without enough votes to override President Clinton's veto, Newt Gingrich led the Republicans not to submit a revised budget, allowing the previously-approved appropriations to expire on schedule. The resulting lack of appropriations led to the shutdown of non-essential functions of the federal government for 28 days due to lack of funds.

Last edited by Bonnie; 10-03-2013 at 11:41 PM.
Reply With Quote