Tech CEOs being grilled in congress today

[HumblePie]

This a such a huge tell about your level of ignorance when it comes to how our government works.

Power of the purse is not the power to direct? Guess we’ve been wrong all these years about the Congress telling us we have to go back to moon using SLS.

No it is not. Congress can say, "We'll reduce your funding if you don't do X next year" and the relevant agency can say, "Go fuck yourself Congress we aren't doing that." The it is up to Congress the next budget year if they follow through with that ultimatum or not. Even if they do, there isn't a guarantee that if they make that threat again it will get what they ask for. There is no authority in the current government structure to give congress the ability to direct anything of the executive branch. Now, the power of the purse is a check/balance on the executive branch. Most of the time if Congress is making such an ultimatum the relevant request is done because no one likes their funding cut. Our government is divided into separate roles and each branch has several "checks" they can use on other branches. I can't believe I am having to explain basics of our government here.

The point being that Congress has no authority to "ban" the US Army from Twitch even if they passed a bill. It was laughable on its face. The fact that any of you in here are defending it is just as laughable.

 

[HumblePie]

This is false. He only was able to do that by abusing his authority to declare an emergency under existing laws and reappropriate funds.

You really don't get it do you? Politics that is.

 

[TheVrolok]

No it is not. Congress can say, "We'll reduce your funding if you don't do X next year" and the relevant agency can say, "Go fuck yourself Congress we aren't doing that." The it is up to Congress the next budget year if they follow through with that ultimatum or not. Even if they do, there isn't a guarantee that if they make that threat again it will get what they ask for. There is no authority in the current government structure to give congress the ability to direct anything of the executive branch. Now, the power of the purse is a check/balance on the executive branch. Most of the time if Congress is making such an ultimatum the relevant request is done because no one likes their funding cut. Our government is divided into separate roles and each branch has several "checks" they can use on other branches. I can't believe I am having to explain basics of our government here.

The point being that Congress has no authority to "ban" the US Army from Twitch even if they passed a bill. It was laughable on its face. The fact that any of you in here are defending it is just as laughable.

So let's ignore that you're argument is just wrong, as has been pointed out numerous times, and no matter how angrily you post that it is, it doesn't support it (reminds me of someone.. else here). Your argument isn't even internally consistent.

You argue that congress has absolutely no authority to direct... because it can only do so indirectly?

That doesn't even hold up to itself.

Jesus Dude.

 

[Paratus]

No it is not. Congress can say, "We'll reduce your funding if you don't do X next year" and the relevant agency can say, "Go fuck yourself Congress we aren't doing that." The it is up to Congress the next budget year if they follow through with that ultimatum or not. Even if they do, there isn't a guarantee that if they make that threat again it will get what they ask for. There is no authority in the current government structure to give congress the ability to direct anything of the executive branch. Now, the power of the purse is a check/balance on the executive branch. Most of the time if Congress is making such an ultimatum the relevant request is done because no one likes their funding cut. Our government is divided into separate roles and each branch has several "checks" they can use on other branches. I can't believe I am having to explain basics of our government here.

The point being that Congress has no authority to "ban" the US Army from Twitch even if they passed a bill. It was laughable on its face. The fact that any of you in here are defending it is just as laughable.

Your problem here is that you tell other members who have much more experience in an area how something is.

When they explain how your interpretation is wrong you double down and accuse them of being wrong regardless of any facts presented and of course their own experience.

Then eventually it comes out you are basing your position on shall we say questionable sources.

You have poor mental hygiene. You are equally open to false and correct information before forming a position, are equally adamant defending your position when wrong as right, and unwilling to accept correction to your position regardless of information provided. Defending your perception of you being right (instead of actually being correct) appears to be your only goal.

So when I see a post by you even if you are making sense I have to assume it’s likely you don’t know what you are talking about until I do my own research.

 

[SMOGZINN]

No it is not. Congress can say, "We'll reduce your funding if you don't do X next year" and the relevant agency can say, "Go fuck yourself Congress we aren't doing that." The it is up to Congress the next budget year if they follow through with that ultimatum or not. Even if they do, there isn't a guarantee that if they make that threat again it will get what they ask for. There is no authority in the current government structure to give congress the ability to direct anything of the executive branch. Now, the power of the purse is a check/balance on the executive branch. Most of the time if Congress is making such an ultimatum the relevant request is done because no one likes their funding cut. Our government is divided into separate roles and each branch has several "checks" they can use on other branches. I can't believe I am having to explain basics of our government here.

The point being that Congress has no authority to "ban" the US Army from Twitch even if they passed a bill. It was laughable on its face. The fact that any of you in here are defending it is just as laughable.

You are just flat out wrong here. The Constitution of the United States makes it clear that Congress controls the military. Read specifically Article 1 Section 8, Clause 11-18. The way the Constitution sets up the military is that President is the highest ranked general, but that general is expected to carry out the orders of Congress. Even if it rarely works that way any more, that is how the Constitution set it up.

Beyond that Congress has a lot of say in how the various agencies work. They can and do specifically allocate money for specific tasks, and those monies are not then allowed to be used for other things, and trust me most of a agency's budget is specifically allocated. They can and do pass rules determining how an agency is run, it is then up to the Executive Branch to enact those rules. I don't know where you get this idea that Congress does not have any say in how the Executive Branch is run. I can tell you as a federal bureaucrat that nearly everything I do has been specifically directed for me to do by Congress.

Congress decides what an agency needs to do, Executive decides how to go about doing it.