You seem unfamiliar with how the U.S. executive branch functions.
Executive agencies only function with express grants of authority from Congress and their enforcement and regulatory powers thus come from authorizing statues - for most agency rulemaking, there simply isn’t any White House involvement, for major agency rulemaking, there generally is an OIRA/OMB veto involved but simply, the White House lacks authority over the day to day running of executive agencies (their general only source of authority over the agencies is through their appointments power and through potential vetos over major regulations).
The White House/Presidency does have plenary power over foreign affairs, as the Supreme Court confirmed in United States v. Curtis-Wright Exporting Co. (1936) but even there, the president plays the role of referee - since policy proposals will originate both within the White House (ex., from the NSC) and from executive branch agencies (State, Defense, etc).
Thus tl;dr assuming “lol the executive branch can’t function” outside of the presidency is simply unsupported by fact - when the most economically significant parts of the executive branch operate a quite a distance away from the White House and have separate grants of authority independent of the presidency. In fact, even assuming your assertions on the presidency are true, that serves as no blocker since “lol Regan actually senile” was the hot talk of Washington for many years, yet Regan’s presidency is widely celeb
No, I'm quite familiar with it all, especially your elections in which a president can win the electoral vote while losing the majority vote. I'm saying your system is stupid as hell and has led to the situation in which you have 2 presidential candidates who are both known for incompetence and senility and now, the only defense an American can have for them is that there are other people LOL. Well then those other people would be president if your system wasn't dysfunctional, shouldn't they?
Laws being passed is newsworthy in its own right - and measures of Congressional efficacy in the short run are about legislation and its fiscal impacts. The results of the law won’t be known for several years but people can make likely predictions (and for the Parkinson’s Disease bill - you have near unanimous support from both researchers). And you obviously can’t evaluate the effect of a law if it doesn’t exist (and only Congress can pass laws).
They are at best mildly informational but certainly NOT evidence of any competence as you attempted to assert. They would be fitting as another part of the random grab bag only.
The CDC and FDA are entirely creations of Congress. Their organizational charts and missions are entirely creations of Congress. Their funding is entirely provided by Congress. Their staffing is entirely governed by the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act. Their agency success (or failure) is inseparable from Congress (as is the case with any executive branch agency).
They were created by Congress in the sense that a brilliant scientist can have a drunk useless father.
So there was a balancing test on the statistical value of a life and Congress and the public were more risk-loving than the CDC (in the least surprising news in the world). “Congress” being worried about votes doesn’t make much sense since 90%+ of Congress members are from safe districts, they will be re-elected no matter what since partisanship is strong. No one wanted the CDC’s risk-aversion, people were broadly okay with living with the virus, and elevated mortality levels among old people were a price (even the old people) were willing to accept. Minimizing mortality as a policy goal is a generally good idea but as usual, it’s balanced against other competing priorities - which is why pick-up trucks not banned and fossil energy is not banned even if some NHTSA or EPA staffers desire otherwise.
You Americans are so funny. Risk-loving is now the cool word for being an irresponsible dumbass, right?
US became the nation with the highest COVID deaths = Oh, that's just us being risk-loving! We like to play even if we die!
Americans live paycheck to paycheck = That's risk-loving; you guys are so boring with your risk aversion and 10 years salary in your savings! Splurge!
Americans have poor education = That's risk-loving trust in the American system that we can have fun all day at any age and still be ok in the end; studying is for the loser risk-averse!
Americans getting fat and diseased = That's trust in the US healthcare system allowing us to be risk-loving when we eat triple bacon cheeseburgers and serve burnt hotdogs and fake cheese pizza in our schools! We know we can go in for heart surgery and F off on the bill or put $200K on insurance which is then charged back to everyone!
Yeah, no. This has always been the case since executive agencies are creations of Congress and thus are subject to whatever Congress decides.
Yeah, yeah. Where's the no? You let unqualified people override qualified people now you have the highest COVID deaths in the world. Oh, wait, I mean the most "risk-loving" COVID deaths in the world LOL
No. It was a separate thought and a separate article. One post can contain multiple different ideas.
No? It looks like you just admitted that yes, it did actually have nothing to do with the failed "congress is effective" argument. Also, you should probably separate them clearly with a transition.
Congress created the framework for energy research & development and for stable electricity markets in the U.S lol
By your logic, then every success in every country is the success of the government. Way to steal credit.
No. It’s not pointless. If U.S. states can thrive when their populations are 30%+ foreign born, then it is clear that 15%+ foreign-born populations are not a barrier to accomplishing anything
1. Who said that a high immigrant population was a barrier?
2. Barrier or not, it's far more important the type of immigration than lumping all immigrants into one number. Your inferrence does not stand.
It is obviously not pointless that immigrants are net fiscal contributors.
Aren't they in every country? A net financial contributor is the lowest bar I can think of; even the most degenerate uneducated people typically manage that unless they're extreme welfare queens. The real questions to ask are:
1. How financially positive are they vs how much room do they take up in your society, which could have been allocated to other people?
2. Aside from the financial aspect, which is an artificial construct, what is their effect on technology, the eternal relationship between man and nature? Did they help you develop useful technology? Did they take it back home? Did your rival close a 5 decade gap with you in like 12 years and then get ahead of you because of them?
All questions that cannot be answered by some very rudimentary article lumping all immigrants together into useless information.
It shows the continued and enduring brilliance of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act
It shows nothing without answering the above questions.
You had both articles documenting various innovation (a new Eli Lilly drug, geothermal energy, data center construction) and an article documenting a new law passed by Congress on fighting Parkinson’s Disease
Right, random grab bag things that should have been clearly labelled as such, unworthy of any debate.
American economic and financial life is so distressing that American tourists are flocking to Europe (and other geographies) in order to get their mind off their paycheck-to-paycheck (whatever that means) living and the terrible macroeconomic situation in the US.
Poor financial choices are why they end up paycheck-to-paycheck. People with poor spending habits just can't hold onto money. Oh, wait, that means they're super exciting "risk-lovers," right? I know what that means; I gotcha [wink]
In fact, US economic and financial life is so terrible, everyone is now buying specialty and more expensive fruits like berries since apples and oranges lack the anti-anxiety capacity.
Again with the fruit LOL What does it say that Americans are gravitating towards fruits with an anti-anxiety component? That their lives are real good, right?
