Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 10-03-2013, 07:00 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by County Mike View Post
Federal Aviation Administration

I work on software that's used by air traffic controllers to help keep planes from crashing, help reduce delays, save fuel, etc.

If you've ever flown somewhere and didn't crash.... You're welcome.
As part of The Transport Infrastructure, your in an area I deem exceptable to be owned by the Federal Union

Obviously, unless they plan to shut down the air ways, then I'd say that in order to stop planes falling out of the sky, yes, you should be VERY essential

Actually...I HAVE flown in US airspace before. I flew in on an international flight to Philadelphia International Airport, and then an Internal flight to Chicago Airport, and then from Saint Louis Missouri to Chicago internally, and then I flew on an international flight out of Chicago.

I then came back on an international flight to Detroit Metropolitan Airport, and an internal flight to Chicago (I like Chicago, but I dont like its airport ) and then off to some tiny little airport in Washington DC...I cant actually remember which one it was without looking ( ) and then did the return journey.

We never crashed once...and were only delayed once by half an hour

Evidently you are rather good at your job

Fanx
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-03-2013, 07:03 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,909
Default

and if your work is used internationally...I've also flown to and from the Channel Islands, and To and from Greece

The Channel Island trip was my first time flying...and it was horrible...but also way back in 1999...the Greek Trip had...turbulance...on the way back

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-03-2013, 10:29 PM
Bonnie Bonnie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Where the bluebonnets bloom
Posts: 6,587
Default

Quote:
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:

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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]

History

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 10:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-03-2013, 11:44 PM
Bonnie Bonnie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Where the bluebonnets bloom
Posts: 6,587
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rearnakedchoke View Post
the problem is you vote our the dems in the senate and the reps in the house and they basically swap positions and you have the same problem (i am not stating this, i am asking) ...

would a viable third party be the answer? problem is i guess is who would they represent? (which political allegiance)
Depending on how the votes go, one party can end up with control of both houses, or each party can end up with control of either the House or Senate which is what we have now.

From what I've been reading, I think Republicans are afraid a Tea Party Republican could break away and run as a third party taking votes away from whoever they put up as their candidate giving the Dems another Presidential win in 2016. With all the public name calling going on between them, I really don't see how this can end well for Republicans.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-04-2013, 01:01 PM
rearnakedchoke rearnakedchoke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,554
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonnie View Post
Depending on how the votes go, one party can end up with control of both houses, or each party can end up with control of either the House or Senate which is what we have now.

From what I've been reading, I think Republicans are afraid a Tea Party Republican could break away and run as a third party taking votes away from whoever they put up as their candidate giving the Dems another Presidential win in 2016. With all the public name calling going on between them, I really don't see how this can end well for Republicans.
is there anything that is stopping the TP from doing that? i think it is a bad move, especially short term .. long term maybe a different story ...
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-04-2013, 01:29 PM
County Mike's Avatar
County Mike County Mike is offline
Hailey's Dad
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Millville, NJ
Posts: 859
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rearnakedchoke View Post
they needed you on breaking bad ... season 3 i think
Yeah, I had a problem with that episode. Even if a controller zones out like that, alarms go off like crazy when the collision alert is detected. It's detected several minutes in advance so somebody would have noticed the alarms and redirected one of those planes. It made for good television though, so I didn't let it upset me too much. Breaking Bad seems to have remained pretty believable for the most part.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-04-2013, 06:53 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonnie View Post
Newt Gingrich
Didnt he actually run for President recently

The problem is, the Federal System doesnt guarentee you get a President of one party, Vs a Congress completely of the other (in terms of majority)

Without this, the whole system gets gridlocked too easily, considering there is more at stake then just the US in this. I think thats what Washington Politicians forget...they are not just messing with the lives of American Citizens...they end up messing with Citizens well beyond their Soverignty because they are a super power and any instability within themselves is magnified across the whole spectrum.

I can give you direct examples of the way that the American Government DIRECTLY effected MY life and living standards...and I am not American and live more then Four Hours time difference from its nearest Realm!

As I have no way period, of influencing the Federal Union...has it EVER been taken into account by Congress just how unjust it is, that they effect my life, when I dont have any control over ellecting them? is that not, by American Standards the deffinition of Tyrany.

Why are they doing this to us? What have we done to deserve being sucked into some kind of Civil War within a Government thousands of miles away? Why dont they care about there allied forces? Why are they so selfish and so self-righteous at the same time?

Maybe this is comupance for all the horrible things we did when we were a Super Power
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-04-2013, 06:58 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonnie View Post
Depending on how the votes go, one party can end up with control of both houses, or each party can end up with control of either the House or Senate which is what we have now.

From what I've been reading, I think Republicans are afraid a Tea Party Republican could break away and run as a third party taking votes away from whoever they put up as their candidate giving the Dems another Presidential win in 2016. With all the public name calling going on between them, I really don't see how this can end well for Republicans.
Niether do I...and yet a Republican Administration is better for a number of reasons. Firstly its more predictable, secondly its more constitutional, and finally, I feel its more cohesive. Liberals are a globulas bunch...whereas the Christian Right is pretty much self explanitary

How does the Tea Party differ from the Republican mainstream Would it be bad if they did break away? Would they have a bad President?

I dont know much about the Tea Party coz I always thought it was just another name for Republicans
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-09-2013, 02:41 PM
CAVEMAN1 CAVEMAN1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 94
Default

A very interesting read:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardf...be-no-default/
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.