Can you guys explain some Trump things to me?

Status
Not open for further replies.
mict085 said:
Liberal hypocrisy on display yet again.

[TWEET]1292447136106319872[/TWEET]
Click to expand...

The hypocrisy of the constitution? The president can’t mess with taxes through executive order.
 
BCSooners said:
The hypocrisy of the constitution? The president can’t mess with taxes through executive order.
Click to expand...

Haha. So it’s ok for Obama to give illegals benefits through executive order but it’s not ok for Trump to do something similar? Democrat hypocrisy knows no bounds.
 
mict085 said:
Haha. So it’s ok for Obama to give illegals benefits through executive order but it’s not ok for Trump to do something similar? Democrat hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Click to expand...

I’ll say it again for those in the back...The president can’t mess with taxes in an executive order
 
sheepdogs1 said:
He also messed with student loan repayment, evictions and jobless aid.
Click to expand...

It was a reply to mict05 quoted tweet of why people will go against it. But to the other stuff you said:

Student loan - yes
Evictions - just recommended they don’t evict residents, no real legislature preventing it
Jobless aid - lowered it

Even the republicans in the negotiations were against Trump doing this. Let the 2 parties come to an agreement like before instead of doing a lot of stuff to add complications to the whole thing.
 
BCSooners said:
It was a reply to mict05 quoted tweet of why people will go against it. But to the other stuff you said:

Student loan - yes
Evictions - just recommended they don’t evict residents, no real legislature preventing it
Jobless aid - lowered it

Even the republicans in the negotiations were against Trump doing this. Let the 2 parties come to an agreement like before instead of doing a lot of stuff to add complications to the whole thing.
Click to expand...

Hard for 2 parties to come together when dems are refusing to do the right thing. They’re playing politics again and trying to tack on BS additions to tax relief during pandemic. The dems that let their cities burn to the ground want fed money to fix the problems of their own doing. No thanks.

That’s why Trump signed this EO, because dems refuse to work together, as they have for almost 4 years.
 
As usual, the devil is in the details. He only signed one executive order, the one regarding housing, and that "order" only suggests that the secretaries of HUD and treasury try to find money to help renters. It doesn't actually order anything. The other three were "memos" with very little legal authority at all. Obviously, the "order" concerning taxes is not legal or binding so I doubt it will ever take effect. The only one with any weight at all is the student loan deferments. What is also crazy is that if they did defer payroll taxes, it wouldn't mean that the taxes would go away. They would just be delayed. It means that we would all owe back taxes when the "order" ends.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/08/09/heres-what-is-actually-trumps-four-executive-orders/
 
mict085 said:
Hard for 2 parties to come together when dems are refusing to do the right thing. They’re playing politics again and trying to tack on BS additions to tax relief during pandemic. The dems that let their cities burn to the ground want fed money to fix the problems of their own doing. No thanks.

That’s why Trump signed this EO, because dems refuse to work together, as they have for almost 4 years.
Click to expand...

It’s hard discussing with you because you are just so narrow minded, but the past stimulus package that was agreed upon both sides was very helpful. What Trump just did was not. It’s that simple.
 
BCSooners said:
It’s hard discussing with you because you are just so narrow minded, but the past stimulus package that was agreed upon both sides was very helpful. What Trump just did was not. It’s that simple.
Click to expand...


It is used as a bargaining ploy and it worked because Pelosi and Schumer want talks to continue and in doing so an agreement will be made and there's a 100% chance of this occurring.

Treasury secretary interview on CNBC this morning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMCYu0szKKQ
 
Last edited:
sheepdogs1 said:
It is used as a bargaining ploy and it worked because Pelosi and Schumer want talks to continue and in doing so an agreement will be made and there's a 100% chance of this occurring.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? They were in DC negotiating all weekend.
 
BCSooners said:
I don’t understand the point you are trying to make.
Click to expand...


The democrats cannot sit back and just allow the president to make his own bill because they, the democrats, want some of the credit, thus negotiations must continue, and in doing so an agreement will be made. The president invoking either orders or memorandums to enable more stimulus does not provide democrats with more bargaining power as it deals with hammering out a second deal. The actions by the president actually ties their hands and they realize it so a deal will be made and both parties will then take credit for coming to the rescue of those in need. The democrats will not sit back and say "we did what we could and that's that, so we have to accept the president's actions."
 
Last edited:
Hard for 2 parties to come together when dems are refusing to do the right thing. They’re playing politics again and trying to tack on BS additions to tax relief during pandemic. The dems that let their cities burn to the ground want fed money to fix the problems of their own doing. No thanks.

That’s why Trump signed this EO, because dems refuse to work together, as they have for almost 4 years.
Click to expand...

The President doesn't have the constitutional authority to do this.

Article 1 - Section 8 - Clause 1
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

Article 1 - Section 8 - Clause 2
The congress shall have Power to borrow Money on the credit of the United States

Now, a little more fundamental here... You wouldn't want the POTUS to have the ability to just EO whatever he/she wants. It's designed this way for a reason. He's not a King... and if he could break the separation of powers on a whim, even if it's for what is considered "the right thing", it sets a dangerous precedent that the President is a King.

A king, emperor, czar, leader, ruler, etc has benefits in these situations... because decisions can be made more quickly, and action can be taken. It has always been known that a deliberative body is a slower process.

In fact, that's actually the way that all world leaders turned tyrants have torn down the deliberative process...

Germany
In Germany, they passed the Enabling Act of 1933 which allowed Hitler the ability to enact laws without the approval of parliament. This was done because there were riots in the streets, the Reichstag building was burned down, and Hitler claimed there was an immediate threat to the country. So in order to respond quickly to situations without a deliberative body, they passed the Enabling Act, which was literally called the "Law for Removing the Distress of the People"...

Turkey
A more modern example.... at one point Turkey was a model for democracy in the middle east. It became a NATO member. But in 2017, history repeated itself.... Erdogan put forth amendments to the constitution that would allow him to run for several more election cycles. Erdogan can select judges for their highest court... He consolidated most executive power into himself. It implemented a "one man" system, and now Erdogan can pass "decrees" (which are basically Executive Orders) that "carry the force of law".

This, like in Germany, was being done because there was an emergency that made people want to embolden someone to make quick decisions. In Turkey, there had been recently a military coup attempt, and a subsequent state of emergency. That allowed Erdogan to assume total power of the country.

There is always some kind of emergency that leads people to want the executive leader of a country to assume more powers, but in truth it is never a good idea.

For those interested, I suggest reading an old Aesop fable called "The Wolf and the Lamb".... It explains this with a harsh truth. "A tyrant will always have a pretext for his tyranny", being the moral of the story.

Food for thought.

Now, as for this particular issue. The deliberative body of the House and Senate need to reach a compromise deal, quickly, that is allowed within our constitutional framework, and get something passed.

For those complaining about the democrats trying to add BS to a relief bill, I will say that I am disgusted by any attempt to do so. During the first relief they tried to add things that literally had nothing to do with providing relief to the bill, and I protested it then, even emailing those Senators who supported it with my opposition. Not that it means anything to do that, but what else can I do?

To be honest, I haven't seen what they tried to add. All I have seen is that the Democrats want a $3 trillion relief bill, and the GOP wants a $1 trillion relief bill. What things are they trying to add that aren't Covid relief related?

Last comment for you history buffs out there.... I think a lot of people agree that pushing multiple things into a single bill is typically undesirable. The Confederate Constitution (of all places) actually sought to improve how finances were done in the federal government, and to simplify the passage of bills, laws, etc by mandating they can only be about a single subject.

So you couldn't have bills that include 100 items in them. They had to be debated and passed one at a time. Pretty interesting proposal. They also had to be specific dollar amounts to fit the need, and it required 2/3 vote by Congress to appropriate the money.

That would make federal spending pretty damn difficult.

Section 9
All bills appropriating money shall specify in Federal currency the exact amount of each appropriation and the purposes for which it is made; and Congress shall grant no extra compensation to any public contractor, officer, agent, or servant, after such contract shall have been made or such service rendered.

Section 9
Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.

Section 9
Congress shall appropriate no money from the Treasury except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses, taken by yeas and nays
 
BCSooners said:
Even the republicans in the negotiations were against Trump doing this. Let the 2 parties come to an agreement like before instead of doing a lot of stuff to add complications to the whole thing.
Click to expand...

They have had their chance to come together and they can't do it. They still have that chance.
 
sheepdogs1 said:
The democrats cannot sit back and just allow the president to make his own bill because they, the democrats, want some of the credit, thus negotiations must continue, and in doing so an agreement will be made. The president invoking either orders or memorandums to enable more stimulus does not provide democrats with more bargaining power as it deals with hammering out a second deal. The actions by the president actually ties their hands and they realize it so a deal will be made and both parties will then take credit for coming to the rescue of those in need. The democrats will not sit back and say "we did what we could and that's that, so we have to accept the president's actions."
Click to expand...

The president doesn't make bills, that falls to Congress. The Democrats passed a relief bill on May 15th. The bill has been sitting in the Senate for nearly 3 months.

The actions by the president don't do anything except delay student loan payments becaues he doesn't have the power to change the tax code.
 
sheepdogs1 said:
The democrats cannot sit back and just allow the president to make his own bill because they, the democrats, want some of the credit, thus negotiations must continue, and in doing so an agreement will be made. The president invoking either orders or memorandums to enable more stimulus does not provide democrats with more bargaining power as it deals with hammering out a second deal. The actions by the president actually ties their hands and they realize it so a deal will be made and both parties will then take credit for coming to the rescue of those in need. The democrats will not sit back and say "we did what we could and that's that, so we have to accept the president's actions."
Click to expand...

But the things he did aren’t helpful, legal, and/or mandatory. Also he wasn’t even there for the negotiations to actively know what’s being discussed.

Again you can point at the Democrats but even the republicans that were in the negotiations were against Trump doing what he did.
 
BCSooners said:
But the things he did aren’t helpful, legal, and/or mandatory. Also he wasn’t even there for the negotiations to actively know what’s being discussed.

Again you can point at the Democrats but even the republicans that were in the negotiations were against Trump doing what he did.
Click to expand...


The treasury secretary was, I believe, and he reports directly to the president.

If something is not mandatory then a person should not make suggestions which might help. Telling people to wear masks where it is not mandatory is a bad thing. Don't believe it is.

People tend to disagree even if they are part of the same side. Schumer was not for the Iran deal as an example. Do you believe that the bill proposed to tax billionaires introduced by Sanders and two others was welcomed by all democratic figureheads.Also, I suppose you have been at odds with family members over the course of your life. No? Negotiations occur between opposing factions as well as like kind. Nothing new.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
Remind me: the true story of the "donor program" from 40 years ago
Replies
12
Views
319
NorthCarolinaSooner
N
BoulderSooner
Which Guys do you Trust??
Replies
18
Views
561
NickZepp
NickZepp
jackson_supersooner
Taking 7 year old boy to first game
2
Replies
23
Views
618
SoonerBounce13
SoonerBounce13
C
Enjoy the kid while you can
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
2K
WichitaSooner
W
W
Record predictions
2 3
Replies
47
Views
2K
NickZepp
NickZepp
Back
Top