Also.. Repeating a lie over and over ad nauseam does not make it true.

#15 | Posted by donnerboy

Hol on, it was a honest mistake, not a lie.

#15 | Posted by donnerboy
Gee...I was mis-terming this whole time!
I honestly thought it meant more like:

Who oversees executive agencies?
The President of the United States
The President of the United States, after signing Congressional acts into law, oversees most executive agencies tasked with implementing and enforcing legislative requirements. Although so called "independent regulatory agencies" operate outside of the president's purview, their rules still equally apply to the public.

Who runs executive agencies?
The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress and, to that end, appoints the heads of the federal agencies, including the Cabinet. The Vice President is also part of the Executive Branch, ready to assume the Presidency should the need arise.

I am SO guilty of using 'oversight' to mean 'oversee'
How funny. The principle- that the EXECUTIVE oversees agencies created by congress- is still valid.
Without this Executive Overview, congress would be free to create agencies with the main function of redirecting public funds to uncontrolled (oops, controlled only the fox in the henhouse) agencies feeding a shady network of NGOs... Oh wait, that's already happened...

"oversight", "oversee" OK got me. That was a real oversight on my part! I lacked the overview of the whole oversee oversight issue!
I honestly thought that the Executive was the constitutional check of the congress, and the Judicial (via the SC) the check of the Executive.
My face is red, but I'm laughing.

So what's your plan, abandon Capitalism?

#32 | Posted by snoofy

-NO, Not at all!
A plan would be to balance trade and control spending.

Americans so ethnocentric.

#29 | Posted by oneironaut

#28 | Posted by oneironaut

Maybe the easily-printed increasingly worthless fiat currency is the problem, not a balanced trade.
Also, in the balanced trade scenario, we would export actual products instead of playing a shell game with play money.
What then, about the trade surplus countries buying up our tangible assets? How does that cycle culminate?

Also, Why didn't the Democrats do that?

Posted by itchyp at 2025-05-24 06:56 PM | Reply
They play for the same team and we're not on their team.

#27 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-05-24 10:14 PM | Reply | Flag *superbump for you too!

The representative from the startup, Mr. Haney from Hooterville, could not be reached for comment, although the development funds were dispersed earlier that day.

The US government could prevent foreign ownership of our land by passing a bill. Many other countries have already curbed such foreign investment. Why don't the Republicans do that?

#25 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2025-05-24 04:25 PM | Reply | Flag:*superbump

Also, Why didn't the Democrats do that?

"US Starup(sic) Unveils World's First Supersonic Artillery Shell"
hmm...
speed of sound in dry air at 20 C =
343 m / s

155 mm Howitzer M114
Muzzle velocity 1,850 ft/s (563 m/s)

155mm ramjet-powered, liquid-fuelled munition
so, a missile? I hope they us a very long pull-string to set it off.

"US Starup(sic) Unveils World's First Supersonic Artillery Shell"
hmm...
speed of sound in dry air at 20 C =
343 m / s

155 mm Howitzer M114
Muzzle velocity 1,850 ft/s (563 m/s)
(already supersonic)

155mm ramjet-powered, liquid-fuelled munition
so, a missile? I hope they us a very long pull-string to set it off.

No, this dispute implicates the political whims of Congress to create agencies and departments independent of the power of the Executive.

thx et_al for the setup. This post (#9 ) has legs.
Fire all your FLAC but you can't change the FACT, that our leaders are and have been creating a fourth branch outside constitutional authority, and they only now are finally being challenged. They're self-dealing, almost ALL of them, they have been doing so for a LONG time!

Maybe you should watch that cute YouTube video on how laws are made here.

#10 | Posted by donnerboy YouTube video on how laws are made here.

-I'm just a bill, yes I'm only a bill, sitting here on capitol hill...

-Maybe you should watch that cute Supreme Court case and learn more about executive oversight.

They got away with it to make the Fed, so now imagine that they can create unlimited "fourth branch" agencies that are immune to constitutional oversight and function as immortal slush funds used to redirect public funds to their cronies via a network of unaccountable agencies feeding a complex structure of NGOs.

The US would be hit with inflation levels the Depression would envy.
proudly posted by onenut

During the Depression, inflation was negative.
What are you trying to say, other than incorrectly asserting that trade balance leads inflation?
Do you even know what you mean?

1930 -6.40% Contraction (-8.5%)
1931 -9.30% Contraction (-6.4%)
1932 -10.30% Contraction (-12.9%)
1933 0.80% Contraction ended in March (-1.2%)

Who owns the most U.S. debt abroad?

Japan: $1.125 trillion.
China: $784 billion.
United Kingdom: $750 billion.
Cayman Islands: $418 billion.
Luxembourg: $413 billion.
Canada: $406 billion.
Belgium: $395 billion.
France: $354 billion.

For danfort et al who champion raising tax rates:

-Taxes raised via tariffs
"they will just pass along the cost to consumers"
Fair enough, but tariffs will also serve to balance trade.

-Tax rates increased
"they will just pass along the cost to consumers"
Plus finished goods cost will increase, leading to greater trade deficit.

Inflation: If inflation is running rampant in a country, the price to produce a unit of a product may be higher than the price in a lower-inflation country. This would impact exports, thus affecting the trade balance.
Which Factors Can Influence a Country's Balance of Trade?
Investopedia
https://www.investopedia.com ... Macroeconomics

Inflation may affect trade balance, but trade balance affect inflation? I don't think so.
Please explain, if you can, onenut.

But has ItchyMyStrap thought about what happens if the trade deficit balance is 0?
#18 | Posted by oneironaut

-Then trade balance would be achieved. All trade partners get to sell their products; everyone makes money; no one abuses another's market.

without the trade deficit, government spending can't go on unabated.

Please explain, because this makes zero sense, also why is "unabated" gov't spending a good thing?

I will point out that per the CFR charts, Both China's trade surplus and their US portfolio holdings peaked 2012-2016, retracted from 2017-2019, then increased again in 2020. This phenomenon is completely independent of US internal taxation; It's based solely on trade imbalance.

#5 No, this dispute implicates the political whims of Congress to create agencies and departments independent of the power of the Executive.

Fixed

#5 No, this dispute implicates the power of Congress to create agencies and departments independent of the political whims of the Executive.
#6 | Posted by et_al

-OK, et al says this^, but the actual argument in front of the Supreme Court says that-

the dispute implicates an important constitutional question: the president's ability to supervise the agency heads who exercise power on his behalf.

Other countries have been playing US for suckers via trade, and internal dissidents such as Danfort are helping them. THEY know what they're doing, but many of us don't, particularly those of us wearing political blinders that limit our field of view to targeting our fellow Americans, while THEY rob us.

^^BOTH parties sold us out re: trade imbalance. Please refer to the CFR charts linked previously. China and others are still going to have a surplus, if given our recent historic state of indifference to trade imbalance, and they are going to continue to buy American equities and land with that surplus, regardless of how much we punish ourself with taxes.
Are you suggesting that we could tax our way out of a trade deficit? Tax apples to offset oranges?
"here, tap our consumer market for all you can, and we'll make up the difference out of our own pocket, and still you will be able to own our equities and land because of all the money we let you make here"