Someone please explain how a president alone can garnish wages. Edict? Exec order?

[Mika]

Does the crowd mewling over "garnishing" wages and other health care issues understand how laws and bills are created, modified, & passed?

After reading some of the many threads on candidates positions on health care, it doesn't look like it.


http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution.html


To clear my question up .. I'm not asking about the pros or cons of it, nor about the methodology of garnishing itself - I'm asking how could a president alone do this?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

1. People keep asking Senator Clinton that.

But she won't answer. :shrug:

[papau]

11. the question is nonsense and a smear - is a tax a garnishment?

[neutron]

36. They're trying to cover up the SCANDEL in today's NYT

Take a look at a couple of things.

First, the NYT today: He took hundreds of thousands of dollars from Nuclear interests then
worked AGAINST the interest of his contituents.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon....

This was a bill to protect the public by forcing Nuclear Power Plants to report leaks.
The first bill wasn't bad. But he re-wrote it so that it was toothless, and protected only
the industry, not the public.

He bragged in Iowa that he had passed legislation that never went through.

For this alone, this guy is a jerk and a fraud.

Oh, and here is what Paul Krugman thinks about his economy plan:

Responding to Recession
by Paul Krugman

<snip>
Since this is an election year, the debate over how to stimulate the economy is inevitably tied up with politics. And here’s a modest suggestion for political reporters. Instead of trying to divine the candidates’ characters by scrutinizing their tone of voice and facial expressions, why not pay attention to what they say about economic policy?
In fact, recent statements by the candidates and their surrogates about the economy are quite revealing.
<snip>
On the Democratic side, John Edwards, although never the front-runner, has been driving his party’s policy agenda. He’s done it again on economic stimulus: last month, before the economic consensus turned as negative as it now has, he proposed a stimulus package including aid to unemployed workers, aid to cash-strapped state and local governments, public investment in alternative energy, and other measures.
Last week Hillary Clinton offered a broadly similar but somewhat larger proposal. (It also includes aid to families having trouble paying heating bills, which seems like a clever way to put cash in the hands of people likely to spend it.) The Edwards and Clinton proposals both contain provisions for bigger stimulus if the economy worsens.
And you have to say that Mrs. Clinton seems comfortable with and knowledgeable about economic policy. I’m sure the Hillary-haters will find some reason that’s a bad thing, but there’s something to be said for presidents who know what they’re talking about.
The Obama campaign’s initial response to the latest wave of bad economic news was, I’m sorry to say, disreputable: Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser claimed that the long-term tax-cut plan the candidate announced months ago is just what we need to keep the slump from “morphing into a drastic decline in consumer spending.” Hmm: claiming that the candidate is all-seeing, and that a tax cut originally proposed for other reasons is also a recession-fighting measure — doesn’t that sound familiar?
Anyway, on Sunday Mr. Obama came out with a real stimulus plan. As was the case with his health care plan, which fell short of universal coverage, his stimulus proposal is similar to those of the other Democratic candidates, but tilted to the right.
For example, the Obama plan appears to contain none of the alternative energy initiatives that are in both the Edwards and Clinton proposals, and emphasizes across-the-board tax cuts over both aid to the hardest-hit families and help for state and local governments. I know that Mr. Obama’s supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy.
In short, the stimulus debate offers a pretty good portrait of the men and woman who would be president. And I haven’t said a word about their hairstyles.

[DainBramaged]

16. It's a flame baiting question, that's why?? What are you trying to do??

Spread the bullshit?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

25. Why is it bullshit to ask how her mandate will be enforced?

I don't know about you, but I'd like to know. I have a hard time believing they have this comprehensive healthcare plan, yet are still working out this one little "detail".

[DainBramaged]

27. What mandate? I don't date men

Bother someone else with that, I don't care since you hate Hillary with all of your heart, just admit it.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

31. In other words, you got nothing. nt

[DainBramaged]

32. Neither do you

Nice try.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Well, I tried.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4365020&mesg_id=4365094

[Mika]

4. A fine effort.

Doesn't look like it took root. ;)

[Jack Bone]

3. How do you pay for Social Security?

I know it's a stupid answer..but if they want your money, they find ways of getting it.

[Mika]

7. I'm asking: how can a president garnish wages? Edict? Exec order? How?

Please explain how a president can do that.

[panader0]

5. Garnishing will not work

A lot of the poorest workers are daylaborers, or get paid in cash. There is a huge underground that does not have a regular payroll check. Under the garnishment plan, those who are poorest and most in need will get nothing.

[begin_within]

6. First, you need this:

[Mika]

8. LOL

:rofl:

[peacebird]

9. so Clinton says she could garnish wages as a penalty against those who don't buy health insurance

and yet her health insurance plan doesn't say anywhere in it just what coverage people could expect in the lower tiers. Does her lowest cost plan cover preventive care and vacinations and sick visits? What sort of co-pay is involved? Nowhere does she go into the important details - saying instead "the market will decide". Sounds like a huge sop to the insurance companies and likely very little benefit to the insured.

We need single payer health care, and need to get the insurance companies and HMOs out of the loop.

[DainBramaged]

12. Quote please, show us where she said this

[peacebird]

29. here you go

AP Top News at 11:40 a.m. EST
24 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans. The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed on ABC's "This Week," she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g8-DEMtAE9q4i4ySQ0eV_qZefmRQD8UIUUBG1

[Vinca]

33. Isn't that just wonderful? A person can't afford to boost the insurance

company profits the way Hillary mandates, so she'll take the grocery money away.

[RC]

37. And if you don't have a job to steal the... hmm, garnish the wages from?

[RC]

38. .

[papau]

13. We do need single payer - but until then check out the Mass Universal Plan 's incentives

[Mika]

15. How could she do that, as president? Edict?

I understand the methodology of "garnishing" wages.

I want to know how a PRESIDENT can do that?

[sandnsea]

10. Just like they do for student loans

that are affordable for every American due to the Clinton tax credits, doncha know.

[TexasObserver]

14. By submitting the bill to congress, lobbying it, and signing it.

The president and the president's executive branch write the omnibus bills like this. In the case of Hillary, the bill will be largely written by the insurance industry. As she has acknowledged, there will be an enforcement provision. That means some kind of penalties for noncompliance.

Will they use garnishment of wages? Probably. How do we know? Because they already do it for withholding taxes, medicare, and social security.

[DainBramaged]

20. You don't know that, Jesus, nice try but the talking point won't work here.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. The President does not submit bills. They need a proxy.

[TexasObserver]

35. Yes, the president does submit bills to congress.

The word you're looking for is: Sponsor.

Yes, it requires a congressional sponsor, which the president always has.

My statement stands. Only a fool would suggest the president doesn't write many of the major bills.

[Mika]

41. True, but a president alone can't mandate such a thing as healthcare garnishments.

Who represents us in congress is more important on such issues.

[TexasObserver]

42. You're quibbling. The president will decide, so it matters.

If you want to shill for Hillary, fine, but she's still the insurance industry's water carrier on this. It matters that she is aligned with them. If you want to pretend differently, that's your head in the sand, not mine.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

43. Who's the fool?

Q: How many bills did Chimp write?

A: Zero.

Bills are typically written by Industry, Congressional/Executive staffers, and think tanks (which may be redundant with Industry).


Only a fool would suggest the president writes many of the major bills.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

17. It's the same for all Prez candidates.

With the notable exception of proposing a budget, which is also subject to Congressional whimsy, an executive does not propose, they dispose.

The most ignored component of this election is who goes to Washington, DC with the nominee.

[sunonmars]

18. A better way is the same way the UK does it, a national insurance system

[HeraldSquare212]

19. Paying for the bureaucracy to enforce that is just wasting money that could go toward subsidies

for those that have difficulty paying. I thought we were all trying to take waste and overhead out of the health care system, not put more in.

[BooScout]

22. It's a tax.....

Just like any other.

[suston96]

23. First of all, until a transcript is available, no one knows what she said......

Secondly, I believe George S was asking about options. Now without details of how the mandate will be executed, any discussions about "garnishing" is stupid.

Everyone has wage deductions for Social Security and Medicare. And they are involuntary!

[DainBramaged]

28. TA DA, we have a winner

Finally, someone else recognized this for what it is, a RW talking point picked up by the Lemmings

[napi21]

24. The way I understand it, Clinton's plan would work similar to SS deductions &

Medicare. It's NOT really "garnishing" wages, but is simply another deduction like income taxes and SS.

I don't see a problem with that. It's similar to the way other industrial countries fund their HC systems. I ThINK the major difference is that the US itemizes the deductions and a lot of the European countries don't. They just put everything into one total tax deduction.

[Occam Bandage]

26. This is perhaps the weakest defense I have ever read, ever.

"Well, um...Hillary's plan would have to be passed by Congress!"

[hiaasenrocks]

30. It's just plain stupid, isn't it?

That poster has been in several threads making the same ridiculous defense in the form of that stupid question.

What the poster refuses to answer, however, is if they believe that the president doesn't have such power...then why is Hillary suggesting such an option and, in a larger sense, why does Hillary even have a plan?

The poster just isn't thinking.

[Mika]

34. Then please explain it for me.

Good questions. Why is Hillary suggesting such an option and, in a larger sense, why does Hillary even have a plan?

BTW, I'm not defending nor promoting anything. I just want to know the process that a president alone would use to mandate the garnishing of wages.

[intheozone]

39. He/she can't, it would have to be legislation passed by Congress. nt

[Mika]

40. That's what I thought. Hil alone simply cannot mandate garnishing of wages.

Yes, I do understand that a prez can be involved in the creation of bills to be presented and voted upon, but a president alone cannot mandate it.

If people are mewling and worrying about a prez candidate co-creating a garnishing/health care bill, then they should be more worried about who is in congress to support it/vote for it. Who sits on the mark up committees, etc.