President Jesse Stops a Government Shutdown!

Thanks to the schoolyard antics of the Democrats and Republicans, another total government shutdown looms for October, but if we had me in the White House, I'd have a few tricks up sleeve to squash this fiscal squabble. As Commander-in-Chief, how would you deal with a government shutdown?

I would vote for you all day long brother Jesse. Thanks for all your concern and work you do on this site.

It's not really going to be shut down. We'll still pay taxes and the government will still spend far too much money.

Get rid of the idea of government.


Fiscal problems? IT'S STOLEN/MADE UP MONEY!

Horse shi....

The long-term answer is to introduce a constitutional amendment.
The party trusted by the people to spend the money is also the party trusted by the people to vote the money that needs to be spent.
Any government which cannot command enough votes to get its budget through the legislature automatically resigns, for that reason, and is replaced by one which CAN command enough votes in the legistature.
As long as "budget stalemate" is deliberately written into the American constitution, you're going to get budget stalemates.

I say let it close down, I'm going fishing anyone needs me I'll be in the Marshall Islands eating lobster!

originally posted by: DISRAELI
The long-term answer is to introduce a constitutional amendment.
The party trusted by the people to spend the money is also the party trusted by the people to vote the money that needs to be spent.
Any government which cannot command enough votes to get its budget through the legislature automatically resigns, for that reason, and is replaced by one which CAN command enough votes in the legistature.
As long as "budget stalemate" is deliberately written into the American constitution, you're going to get budget stalemates.

Seeing how the vote for POTUS is national and NOT gerrymandered, how about this;

If you're a member of Congress and your party doesn't occupy the White House, your vote only counts for half a vote on legislative matters.

Yeah, I didn't think so.

a reply to: Flatfish
Or how about this;
The country is run by a Cabinet formed by the majority party in Congress, and the Presidency dimishes to a ceremonial role.
As I said, you are going to get budget stalemates as long as budget stalemates are written into the constitution.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Then you've missed the entire point of checks and balances. But the ruling party has their own czars anyway.

a reply to: JesseVentura
WHAT THE HECK is going on with Jesse? He was literally dancing around the whole time; couldn't stand still. And what's with the Bob Marley T-shirt? Seemed to me like Jesse was on drugs.

Don't get me wrong here. I'm a Jesse fan. Just, this was a really odd, odd performance.

originally posted by: Detergent
a reply to: JesseVentura
...And what's with the Bob Marley T-shirt? Seemed to me like Jesse was on drugs.

Uh, that's Jimi Hendrix.

..as to why Jesse moves around a lot, you obviously haven't been watching Jesse much in the last several years.

I'm confused, you explained why the shut down was wrong, gave your opinions on it, and your opinions on a couple other people's solutions. But you never actually stated how you would solve it... unless the bribing them was your solution I guess...

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus
And my point is that the provision of "checks and balance" IS the problem of budget stalemate. That is what I mean by budget stalemate being written into your constitution.
It is an archaic idea, first conceived in eighteenth century England at a time when one of the elements was not elected. Once the same people are electing both elements, it becomes redundant, and it becomes a source of regular trouble.

originally posted by: JesseVentura
Thanks to the schoolyard antics of the Democrats and Republicans, another total government shutdown looms for October, but if we had me in the White House, I'd have a few tricks up sleeve to squash this fiscal squabble. As Commander-in-Chief, how would you deal with a government shutdown?

We'll Jesse how would you put this boat back in line and how could we get big business out of our political party's. And any hopes on trump I had a dream he bailed and gave you the torch.

a reply to: JesseVentura

President Jesse - No offence Jesse, but if it ever happens it's because you have sold out - There is no way in hell they will ever allow a "real" person into POTUS office - You should know that , You have covered the JFK assassination after all.

And I don't want to be disrespectful, because I don't know you - so please don't take this the wrong way, but I am very very suspicious of anyone vying to achieve that level of power.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Flatfish
Or how about this;
The country is run by a Cabinet formed by the majority party in Congress, and the Presidency dimishes to a ceremonial role.
As I said, you are going to get budget stalemates as long as budget stalemates are written into the constitution.

I think you're missing the point. Congress is the one that's currently dissfunctional and the majority party is the source of the problem.

They seem more interested in taking us to war to protect Isreal than doing anything for the American people, protecting religious rights at the expense of human rights, preserving corporate profits at the expense of the environment and making it as difficult as possible for anyone who disagrees with them to even exercise their right to vote.

The only redeeming quality currently held by the majority party in Congress is the fact that they are not immortal and will eventually die off. They are the result of gerrymandered elections and are anything but representative of the majority of American voters.

I suspect that if the current GOP majority in Congress had sole authority over the nation's budget, their first priority would be to allocate the funding necessary to tear down the capital dome and have it replaced with a steeple. No Thanks!

a reply to: JesseVentura

This is why I prefer the parliamentary system. Good old no confidence vote and snap elections can change the course and more than one party can do there part. It's not just better but it's more times than note a mirror of the people's will if done properly.

He's like the white Steven Seagal. Of course I'd vote for him.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
The long-term answer is to introduce a constitutional amendment.
The party trusted by the people to spend the money is also the party trusted by the people to vote the money that needs to be spent.
Any government which cannot command enough votes to get its budget through the legislature automatically resigns, for that reason, and is replaced by one which CAN command enough votes in the legistature.
As long as "budget stalemate" is deliberately written into the American constitution, you're going to get budget stalemates.

This will lead to super majority governments. At any point there's not a super majority, the minority party will block the majority in order to make them lose power. This will repeat over and over until a super majority is eventually elected.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus
And my point is that the provision of "checks and balance" IS the problem of budget stalemate. That is what I mean by budget stalemate being written into your constitution.
It is an archaic idea, first conceived in eighteenth century England at a time when one of the elements was not elected. Once the same people are electing both elements, it becomes redundant, and it becomes a source of regular trouble.

One of the branches of government still isn't elected. We do have a judicial branch you know.