Speaker of the House

[Rich2018]

My previous post got truncated.

I agree. But... I think there is a good argument, as a practical matter, for a Speaker to come from outside of the body (as long as it is not a partisan hack or someone like Trump). Here's my pitch:

The fundamental purpose for the Speakership is to manage legislation. Having an outsider not beholden to party, but simply there to administer the process could alleviate some of the more partisan actions. A neutral Speaker could be a gatekeeper to keep legislation on track, keep out pure partisan posturing legislation, determine committee assignments on merit, organize the schedule, etc. They wouldn't be as subject to partisan pressure, and wouldn't have to worry about losing their seat during an electing.

As in the Senate, there'd be a Marjority leader and a Minority leader to pursue party interests, but the Speaker could be outside the fray. There is a significant conflict of interests in the current arrangement where party interests override public interest.

The Speaker is based on the UK office of the same name. But in the UK, the Speaker is apolitical (he/she is also an MP).

 

[Glitch]

You're forgetting a couple of key factors in that analysis, though. After the 1981 Kemp-Roth Tax Cuts, there was the 1982 TEFRA Tax Increases (which obviously didn't crash the economy).... and secondly, real GDP growth for FY89 was 3.9% - hardly an economic downturn. The recession didn't happen until FY91 when real growth was -0.3%.

When you are enjoying a 7.2% growth in the GDP one year, and the GDP drops by almost half, it is an economic downturn. Granted, a GDP growth rate of 3.9% is still a very good economy, just not a booming one.

 

[Cordelier]

When you are enjoying a 7.2% growth in the GDP one year, and the GDP drops by almost half, it is an economic downturn. Granted, a GDP growth rate of 3.9% is still a very good economy, just not a booming one.

Except the only year the economy ever achieved that level during the time period was FY84 (7.8%), and that was a product of coming out of the 82-83 recession. FY85 (4.5%), FY86 (3.8%), FY87 (3.0%), and FY88 (4.4%) showed pretty consistently solid growth... certainly nothing out of line with FY89's 3.9% level.

 

[reflechissez]

When you are enjoying a 7.2% growth in the GDP one year, and the GDP drops by almost half, it is an economic downturn. Granted, a GDP growth rate of 3.9% is still a very good economy, just not a booming one.

Oh, good grief. 7.2% is a unsustainable growth rate. GDP growth of 3.9% IS a booming economy.

 

[Glitch]

Oh, good grief. 7.2% is a unsustainable growth rate. GDP growth of 3.9% IS a booming economy.

A normal economy is anything in the 3% to 5% GDP growth rate. It becomes a booming economy when the GDP growth is above 5%. Obviously anything above 5% is not sustainable long-term growth, which is why they call it a booming economy.

 

[reflechissez]

A normal economy is anything in the 3% to 5% GDP growth rate. It becomes a booming economy when the GDP growth is above 5%. Obviously anything above 5% is not sustainable long-term growth, which is why they call it a booming economy.

Nominal GDP growth is 3% per year, compounded.

 

[NWRatCon]

Absolutely nothing. Carter was President after Vietnam had already ended. He also pardoned every deserter coward on his first day in office, which completely destroyed the morale of those serving in the military. Carter was an unmitigated disaster for the military. Reagan was necessary to remove cowardly Carter from being President. Or did you forget about Carter's abject cowardice in freeing the Iranian hostages?

That is one of the most asinine posts you've ever produced, which certainly has stiff competition. Nearly all of it is untrue.

 

[NWRatCon]

The Speaker is based on the UK office of the same name. But in the UK, the Speaker is apolitical (he/she is also an MP).

That really was the point. The problem with the current arrangement is that the Speakership acts as a political post. That was not the conception of the Framers (who largely abhorred parties).

Imagine if the Speaker were seen as an honest, neutral broker. Most of the political games would become irrelevant. They could ensure order, keep out purely partisan gambits, suggest compromises, etc. What a wonderful world. Which is why it will never happen. Neither party would surrender such power.

 

[911Sparky]

If the Vice President is being impeached, do they still retain a vote in the Senate in the event of a tie?

Requires 2/3 majority to convict in senate.

 

[Rich2018]

That really was the point. The problem with the current arrangement is that the Speakership acts as a political post. That was not the conception of the Framers (who largely abhorred parties).

Imagine if the Speaker were seen as an honest, neutral broker. Most of the political games would become irrelevant. They could ensure order, keep out purely partisan gambits, suggest compromises, etc. What a wonderful world. Which is why it will never happen. Neither party would surrender such power.

I think it's inevitable that the Speaker of the House becomes partizan given the US style of government with the head of the government not sitting in the legislature.

 

[911Sparky]

In cases of impeachment, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, as the presiding officer, casts the tie-breaking vote if one should ever arise, not the VP. That is specifically why the founders made the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court the presiding officer when writing the US Constitution. They knew that the VP, as President of the Senate, would have the ability to cast tie-breaking votes, which would be inappropriate if the VP was the one being impeached.

See also: https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/01/the-role-of-the-chief-justice-in-an-impeachment-trial/

There can be no tie to convict in an impeachment. It requires 2/3 majority, 67 votes.

 

[Glitch]

That is one of the most asinine posts you've ever produced, which certainly has stiff competition. Nearly all of it is untrue.

All of it is true and verifiable, actually. It is too bad that you know nothing of that part of American history, but not surprising considering how you love your leftist indoctrination centers. You are a product of your own leftist lies.

The Vietnam war ended in April 1975, after the Fall of Saigon. Carter was not elected President until November 1976, more than a year AFTER Vietnam ended, as I factually stated.

On Carter's first full day in office the coward pardoned all military deserters and completely destroyed military morale.

President Carter pardons draft dodgers , Jan. 21, 1977

The amnesty was meant to put an end to the bad feelings related to the Vietnam War.

www.politico.com

Clearly you need a better education.

 

[Glitch]

There can be no tie to convict in an impeachment. It requires 2/3 majority, 67 votes.

Actually, there can be a tie vote. It means that there are not enough votes to convict, but a tie vote is still a possibility. Which is why the Supreme Court Chief Justice is the presiding officer over presidential impeachments, and not the President of the Senate or VP.

 

[Cordelier]

All of it is true and verifiable, actually. It is too bad that you know nothing of that part of American history, but not surprising considering how you love your leftist indoctrination centers. You are a product of your own leftist lies.

The Vietnam war ended in April 1975, after the Fall of Saigon. Carter was not elected President until November 1976, more than a year AFTER Vietnam ended, as I factually stated.

On Carter's first full day in office the coward pardoned all military deserters and completely destroyed military morale.

President Carter pardons draft dodgers , Jan. 21, 1977

The amnesty was meant to put an end to the bad feelings related to the Vietnam War.

www.politico.com

Clearly you need a better education.

*LOL* Carter's pardoning of the draft dodgers completely destroyed military morale??

Jesus... give us a break.

 

[Glitch]

*LOL* Carter's pardoning of the draft dodgers completely destroyed military morale??

Jesus... give us a break.

Indeed. I was serving on active duty in the military at the time the coward Carter issued his pardon, and know from first-hand experience.

What is your excuse for being so poorly educated?

 

[Cordelier]

Indeed. I was serving on active duty in the military at the time the coward Carter issued his pardon, and know from first-hand experience.

What is your excuse for being so poorly educated?

You poor, poor Cinderella soldier. How did you ever recover?

I served in the early 90's, so Carter's pardon was a bit before my time.... but I can't say I was broken-hearted about not having to serve with a bunch of draftees who didn't want to be there in the first place. I can't see attitudes being all that different in the late 70's. Did you miss being in a foxhole with some bead-wearing flower child, Glitch?

 

[NWRatCon]

Indeed. I was serving on active duty in the military at the time the coward Carter issued his pardon, and know from first-hand experience.

What is your excuse for being so poorly educated?

What's yours? I suspect you were as ignorant of reality then as you are now. All the Vietnam Vets I served with didn't seem to have a morale problem about it. I suspect it was a "personal problem", not a personnel problem. It took awhile for the military to adapt to the "all volunteer" force, but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks it has hurt readiness, now.

 

[Glitch]

What's yours?

I'm not the one who claimed the coward Carter's pardon was a lie. That would be your uneducated leftist buddy Cordelier.

Or are you also making the same assertion that the coward Carter never pardoned military deserters on his first day in office?

I suspect you were as ignorant of reality then as you are now. All the Vietnam Vets I served with didn't seem to have a morale problem about it. I suspect it was a "personal problem", not a personnel problem. It took awhile for the military to adapt to the "all volunteer" force, but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks it has hurt readiness, now.

Setting aside your questionable perception of reality, it was those who where drafted that were the most upset by the coward Carter's deserter pardon. They were law-abiding citizens who did their duty and showed up for military service when drafted. Unlike the deserter scum who violated the law, but are once again being rewarded by leftist filth.

 

[Cordelier]

I'm not the one who claimed the coward Carter's pardon was a lie. That would be your uneducated leftist buddy Cordelier.

Or are you also making the same assertion that the coward Carter never pardoned military deserters on his first day in office?


Setting aside your questionable perception of reality, it was those who where drafted that were the most upset by the coward Carter's deserter pardon. They were law-abiding citizens who did their duty and showed up for military service when drafted. Unlike the deserter scum who violated the law, but are once again being rewarded by leftist filth.

Suck it up, Cinderella.

Don't be such a drama Queen.

You want to know what truly destroys military morale? Pardoning convicted war criminals the way Trump did. If I were still serving, I've got to figure that'd be a lot more of a kick in the nuts than a bunch of flower children getting pardons.

 

[Rich2018]

All of it is true and verifiable, actually. It is too bad that you know nothing of that part of American history, but not surprising considering how you love your leftist indoctrination centers. You are a product of your own leftist lies.

The Vietnam war ended in April 1975, after the Fall of Saigon. Carter was not elected President until November 1976, more than a year AFTER Vietnam ended, as I factually stated.

On Carter's first full day in office the coward pardoned all military deserters and completely destroyed military morale.

President Carter pardons draft dodgers , Jan. 21, 1977

The amnesty was meant to put an end to the bad feelings related to the Vietnam War.

www.politico.com

Clearly you need a better education.

I think America's first military defeat did more than it's fair share to destroy morale.