do you actually think the buck stops with the president?

BobTheCoward · 8th January 2023, 12:37 PM

On a different thread, someone mentioned Benghazi. And while people think there was no wrongdoing by the white house, in a sense, "the buck stops here."

I believe the buck stops at the president. But does anyone else?

4 million people work for the executive branch. If only 1 percent commit a violation in a year, the president is responsible for the commission of over 100 violations a day. Several of those a day are likely worth resignation.

It seems to me the president should be in a constant state of vacancy until we find one that can actually reduce the number of resignation worthy violations to zero.

What does everyone else think? Do you agree the buck stops with the president? If so, am I misunderstanding the meaning of the buck stopping?

lobosrul5 · 8th January 2023, 12:42 PM

Truman did not mean that he, or any other president should be punished for anyone in the executive branch doing anything wrong when he said that. It means decisions that get to him stop there. He can't "pass the buck" on.

https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/educat...tops-here-sign

sackett · 8th January 2023, 12:42 PM

Oh Bob. Please don't ask, ever -- never! -- if you've misunderstood something.

BobTheCoward · 8th January 2023, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Truman did not mean that he, or any other president should be punished for anyone in the executive branch doing anything wrong when he said that. It means decisions that get to him stop there. He can't "pass the buck" on.

https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/educat...tops-here-sign

from the article

Quote:

The saying "the buck stops here" derives from the slang expression "pass the buck" which means passing the responsibility on to someone else.

Then he is responsible for what happens?
If something goes wrong at work, the buck (blame) stops with the person responsible?

Isn't he responsible for every decision if the decisions stop with him?

Thermal · 8th January 2023, 12:47 PM

The buck should stop at the person who committed the crime. "I was just following orders" is not a buck passing excuse. If someone higher up was complicit, that is a separate crime, for which they should be separately accountable.

BobTheCoward · 8th January 2023, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Thermal

The buck should stop at the person who committed the crime. "I was just following orders" is not a buck passing excuse. If someone higher up was complicit, that is a separate crime, for which they should be separately accountable.

Agreed. That is why Im so confused why people want the president to have the buck stops with him and have him responsible for the crimes of 4 million people

Thermal · 8th January 2023, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Agreed. That is why Im so confused why people want the president to have the buck stops with him and have him responsible for the crimes of 4 million people

I take the expression as meaning that the responsibility will no longer be shucked around when it reaches the attention of the Chief Executive, and responsibility for action will fall upon that Office, rather than culpability.

BobTheCoward · 8th January 2023, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by Thermal

I take the expression as meaning that the responsibility will no longer be shucked around when it reaches the attention of the Chief Executive, and responsibility for action will fall upon that Office, rather than culpability.

If the president is responsible for that action, then he is culpable? Just as everyone responsible for a bank robbery is to blame for that bank robbery?

Thermal · 8th January 2023, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

If the president is responsible for that action, then he is culpable? Just as everyone responsible for a bank robbery is to blame for that bank robbery?

I take it as meaning taking responsibility for future, or remedial action, not the original illegal/improper act.

Brainster · 8th January 2023, 07:02 PM

As an aside but relevant to the topic, back in the 1970s as an underling I had to open a certain percentage of general mail to my department and figure out to whom it belonged. We had little Referred To: Tags that we could staple to the mail that were called "Buck Slips" as in, passing the Buck.

gabeygoat · 8th January 2023, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

4 million people work for the executive branch.

It seems to me the president should be in a constant state of vacancy until we find one that can actually reduce the number of resignation worthy violations to zero.

assuming there are no human beings that can be responsible for every individual action of 4 million other human beings, I'm reading you as suggesting that there should be no executive branch

bruto · 8th January 2023, 07:59 PM

I think there is a general confusion in the meaning of "responsibility" here. It is a broad word, I think, and does not mean just one thing for everything.

The kind of buck stopping about which Truman spoke was the responsibility for decisions, especially difficult ones. You cannot kick a difficult question upstairs if you are at the top of the staircase. That is a big responsibility, indeed.

But this is not the same thing as the responsibility of a scapegoat. The president is responsible for final decisions on what to do, and that includes decisions which his subordinates carry out under orders, but not their mstakes, errors and crimes.

(I think Thermal and others might have trod on the nightingale stair before me here)

shemp · 8th January 2023, 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

On a different thread, someone mentioned Benghazi. And while people think there was no wrongdoing by the white house, in a sense, "the buck stops here."

I believe the buck stops at the president. But does anyone else?

4 million people work for the executive branch. If only 1 percent commit a violation in a year, the president is responsible for the commission of over 100 violations a day. Several of those a day are likely worth resignation.

It seems to me the president should be in a constant state of vacancy until we find one that can actually reduce the number of resignation worthy violations to zero.

What does everyone else think? Do you agree the buck stops with the president? If so, am I misunderstanding the meaning of the buck stopping?

I think that, as usual, you are being disingenuous for the sake of starting a silly argument, and nobody should waste their time arguing with you.

BobTheCoward · 8th January 2023, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by bruto

I think there is a general confusion in the meaning of "responsibility" here. It is a broad word, I think, and does not mean just one thing for everything.

The kind of buck stopping about which Truman spoke was the responsibility for decisions, especially difficult ones. You cannot kick a difficult question upstairs if you are at the top of the staircase. That is a big responsibility, indeed.

But this is not the same thing as the responsibility of a scapegoat. The president is responsible for final decisions on what to do, and that includes decisions which his subordinates carry out under orders, but not their mstakes, errors and crimes.

(I think Thermal and others might have trod on the nightingale stair before me here)

Hmm. I did not think that was what they meant.

I understand the crime thing, but mistakes and errors? Isnt training and hiring a downstream product of decisions made by the president?

Norman Alexander · 8th January 2023, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Truman did not mean that he, or any other president should be punished for anyone in the executive branch doing anything wrong when he said that. It means decisions that get to him stop there. He can't "pass the buck" on.

https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/educat...tops-here-sign

This here. End of.

rjh01 · 9th January 2023, 07:26 PM

Here are some questions to ask if you want to know if a manager (including the President of the USA) should be blamed for the actions of others
1. Could the person have done something to stop it?
2. Did the person allow a culture that allowed it?
3. Are there blockages in communications that stopped the person from knowing about this?
4. Did the person do anything that allowed such actions?
If yes to any of these questions then that person is responsible for what happened.

theprestige · 9th January 2023, 07:36 PM

I'm on board with all but number 3. How is the guy at the top supposed to know about blocked information channels, without running his own parallel info ops outside the established system? Do we really expect - or want - the president-elect to have his own private intelligence service when he takes office? That sounds disturbingly... Russian.

My concern is more about we the electorate. We're the actual government, in the sense that our elected officials are supposed to answer to us. But our elected officials control all our information channels.

So we should run our own parallel info ops? How's that working out for us? The fourth estate has already been co-opted. Further attempts are demonized as insurrectionists or worse.

rjh01 · 9th January 2023, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm on board with all but number 3. How is the guy at the top supposed to know about blocked information channels, without running his own parallel info ops outside the established system? Do we really expect - or want - the president-elect to have his own private intelligence service when he takes office? That sounds disturbingly... Russian.

My concern is more about we the electorate. We're the actual government, in the sense that our elected officials are supposed to answer to us. But our elected officials control all our information channels.

So we should run our own parallel info ops? How's that working out for us? The fourth estate has already been co-opted. Further attempts are demonized as insurrectionists or worse.

If the guy at the top finds out about a blockage then they need to fix that as a matter of urgency. They also need to make sure they do not create one. And to actively discourage them.

The Great Zaganza · 10th January 2023, 04:21 AM

The buck has to stop somewhere .

If not with the Executive, then where?

I'm open for suggestions.

Gulliver Foyle · 10th January 2023, 06:14 AM

We all know the republican party's answer to this question:

If the president is a Democrat then they're responsible even if the action has nothing to do with them (c.f. Benghazi); if the president is a republican then the buck never stops with him, even if the consequences are a direct result of his words or actions.

arayder · 10th January 2023, 12:31 PM

As one would suspect there is an existing office of ethics:

Quote:

The United States Office of Government Ethics (OGE) leads and oversees the executive branch ethics program which is at work every day in more than 130 agencies. The executive branch ethics program works to prevent financial conflicts of interest to help ensure government decisions are made free from personal financial bias.

https://www.oge.gov

8th January 2023, 12:37 PM	#1
BobTheCoward Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 22,789	do you actually think the buck stops with the president? On a different thread, someone mentioned Benghazi. And while people think there was no wrongdoing by the white house, in a sense, "the buck stops here." I believe the buck stops at the president. But does anyone else? 4 million people work for the executive branch. If only 1 percent commit a violation in a year, the president is responsible for the commission of over 100 violations a day. Several of those a day are likely worth resignation. It seems to me the president should be in a constant state of vacancy until we find one that can actually reduce the number of resignation worthy violations to zero. What does everyone else think? Do you agree the buck stops with the president? If so, am I misunderstanding the meaning of the buck stopping?
BobTheCoward Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 22,789

8th January 2023, 12:42 PM	#2
lobosrul5 Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2017 Posts: 4,127	Truman did not mean that he, or any other president should be punished for anyone in the executive branch doing anything wrong when he said that. It means decisions that get to him stop there. He can't "pass the buck" on. https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/educat...tops-here-sign
lobosrul5 Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2017 Posts: 4,127

8th January 2023, 12:42 PM	#3
sackett Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Detroit Posts: 8,160	Oh Bob. Please don't ask, ever -- never! -- if you've misunderstood something.
	__________________ If you would learn a man's character, give him authority. If you would ruin a man's character, let him seize power.

8th January 2023, 12:45 PM	#4
BobTheCoward Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 22,789	Originally Posted by lobosrul5 Truman did not mean that he, or any other president should be punished for anyone in the executive branch doing anything wrong when he said that. It means decisions that get to him stop there. He can't "pass the buck" on. https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/educat...tops-here-sign from the article Quote: The saying "the buck stops here" derives from the slang expression "pass the buck" which means passing the responsibility on to someone else. Then he is responsible for what happens? If something goes wrong at work, the buck (blame) stops with the person responsible? Isn't he responsible for every decision if the decisions stop with him?
BobTheCoward Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 22,789	Last edited by BobTheCoward; 8th January 2023 at 12:47 PM.

8th January 2023, 12:47 PM	#5
Thermal Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: In the Troll Ignoring Section Posts: 21,170	The buck should stop at the person who committed the crime. "I was just following orders" is not a buck passing excuse. If someone higher up was complicit, that is a separate crime, for which they should be separately accountable.
	__________________ "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" -Mark Twain "Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet

8th January 2023, 12:51 PM	#6
BobTheCoward Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 22,789	Originally Posted by Thermal The buck should stop at the person who committed the crime. "I was just following orders" is not a buck passing excuse. If someone higher up was complicit, that is a separate crime, for which they should be separately accountable. Agreed. That is why Im so confused why people want the president to have the buck stops with him and have him responsible for the crimes of 4 million people
BobTheCoward Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 22,789

8th January 2023, 01:04 PM	#7
Thermal Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: In the Troll Ignoring Section Posts: 21,170	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward Agreed. That is why Im so confused why people want the president to have the buck stops with him and have him responsible for the crimes of 4 million people I take the expression as meaning that the responsibility will no longer be shucked around when it reaches the attention of the Chief Executive, and responsibility for action will fall upon that Office, rather than culpability.
	__________________ "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" -Mark Twain "Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet

8th January 2023, 01:06 PM	#8
BobTheCoward Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 22,789	Originally Posted by Thermal I take the expression as meaning that the responsibility will no longer be shucked around when it reaches the attention of the Chief Executive, and responsibility for action will fall upon that Office, rather than culpability. If the president is responsible for that action, then he is culpable? Just as everyone responsible for a bank robbery is to blame for that bank robbery?
BobTheCoward Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 22,789

8th January 2023, 01:10 PM	#9
Thermal Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: In the Troll Ignoring Section Posts: 21,170	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward If the president is responsible for that action, then he is culpable? Just as everyone responsible for a bank robbery is to blame for that bank robbery? I take it as meaning taking responsibility for future, or remedial action, not the original illegal/improper act.
	__________________ "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" -Mark Twain "Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet

8th January 2023, 07:02 PM	#10
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 19,566	As an aside but relevant to the topic, back in the 1970s as an underling I had to open a certain percentage of general mail to my department and figure out to whom it belonged. We had little Referred To: Tags that we could staple to the mail that were called "Buck Slips" as in, passing the Buck.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

8th January 2023, 07:38 PM	#11
gabeygoat Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Hard Corvallis Oregon Posts: 1,619	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward 4 million people work for the executive branch. It seems to me the president should be in a constant state of vacancy until we find one that can actually reduce the number of resignation worthy violations to zero. assuming there are no human beings that can be responsible for every individual action of 4 million other human beings, I'm reading you as suggesting that there should be no executive branch
	__________________ "May I interest you in some coconut milk?" ~Akhenaten Wallabe Esq

8th January 2023, 07:59 PM	#12
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 33,760	I think there is a general confusion in the meaning of "responsibility" here. It is a broad word, I think, and does not mean just one thing for everything. The kind of buck stopping about which Truman spoke was the responsibility for decisions, especially difficult ones. You cannot kick a difficult question upstairs if you are at the top of the staircase. That is a big responsibility, indeed. But this is not the same thing as the responsibility of a scapegoat. The president is responsible for final decisions on what to do, and that includes decisions which his subordinates carry out under orders, but not their mstakes, errors and crimes. (I think Thermal and others might have trod on the nightingale stair before me here)
	__________________ I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver) "There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)

8th January 2023, 08:56 PM	#13
shemp a flimsy character...perfidious and despised Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Out back preparing the bunker for the next Civil War Posts: 52,733	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward On a different thread, someone mentioned Benghazi. And while people think there was no wrongdoing by the white house, in a sense, "the buck stops here." I believe the buck stops at the president. But does anyone else? 4 million people work for the executive branch. If only 1 percent commit a violation in a year, the president is responsible for the commission of over 100 violations a day. Several of those a day are likely worth resignation. It seems to me the president should be in a constant state of vacancy until we find one that can actually reduce the number of resignation worthy violations to zero. What does everyone else think? Do you agree the buck stops with the president? If so, am I misunderstanding the meaning of the buck stopping? I think that, as usual, you are being disingenuous for the sake of starting a silly argument, and nobody should waste their time arguing with you.
	__________________ "Yes, I'll be around for many more centuries. You, meanwhile, will have long ago been turned into value dog food, despite your express wishes to the contrary." -- JihadJane

8th January 2023, 09:04 PM	#14
BobTheCoward Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 22,789	Originally Posted by bruto I think there is a general confusion in the meaning of "responsibility" here. It is a broad word, I think, and does not mean just one thing for everything. The kind of buck stopping about which Truman spoke was the responsibility for decisions, especially difficult ones. You cannot kick a difficult question upstairs if you are at the top of the staircase. That is a big responsibility, indeed. But this is not the same thing as the responsibility of a scapegoat. The president is responsible for final decisions on what to do, and that includes decisions which his subordinates carry out under orders, but not their mstakes, errors and crimes. (I think Thermal and others might have trod on the nightingale stair before me here) Hmm. I did not think that was what they meant. I understand the crime thing, but mistakes and errors? Isnt training and hiring a downstream product of decisions made by the president?
BobTheCoward Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 22,789

8th January 2023, 09:20 PM	#15
Norman Alexander Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Dharug & Gundungurra Posts: 13,622	Originally Posted by lobosrul5 Truman did not mean that he, or any other president should be punished for anyone in the executive branch doing anything wrong when he said that. It means decisions that get to him stop there. He can't "pass the buck" on. https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/educat...tops-here-sign This here. End of.
	__________________ _{...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015}

9th January 2023, 07:26 PM	#16
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Flying around in the sky Posts: 27,578	Here are some questions to ask if you want to know if a manager (including the President of the USA) should be blamed for the actions of others 1. Could the person have done something to stop it? 2. Did the person allow a culture that allowed it? 3. Are there blockages in communications that stopped the person from knowing about this? 4. Did the person do anything that allowed such actions? If yes to any of these questions then that person is responsible for what happened.
	__________________ This signature is for rent.

9th January 2023, 07:36 PM	#17
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 63,027	I'm on board with all but number 3. How is the guy at the top supposed to know about blocked information channels, without running his own parallel info ops outside the established system? Do we really expect - or want - the president-elect to have his own private intelligence service when he takes office? That sounds disturbingly... Russian. My concern is more about we the electorate. We're the actual government, in the sense that our elected officials are supposed to answer to us. But our elected officials control all our information channels. So we should run our own parallel info ops? How's that working out for us? The fourth estate has already been co-opted. Further attempts are demonized as insurrectionists or worse.
	__________________ There is no Antimemetics Division.

9th January 2023, 08:43 PM	#18
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Flying around in the sky Posts: 27,578	Originally Posted by theprestige I'm on board with all but number 3. How is the guy at the top supposed to know about blocked information channels, without running his own parallel info ops outside the established system? Do we really expect - or want - the president-elect to have his own private intelligence service when he takes office? That sounds disturbingly... Russian. My concern is more about we the electorate. We're the actual government, in the sense that our elected officials are supposed to answer to us. But our elected officials control all our information channels. So we should run our own parallel info ops? How's that working out for us? The fourth estate has already been co-opted. Further attempts are demonized as insurrectionists or worse. If the guy at the top finds out about a blockage then they need to fix that as a matter of urgency. They also need to make sure they do not create one. And to actively discourage them.
	__________________ This signature is for rent.

10th January 2023, 04:21 AM	#19
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 19,306	The buck has to stop somewhere . If not with the Executive, then where? I'm open for suggestions.
	__________________ "The only true paradise is paradise lost" Marcel Proust

10th January 2023, 06:14 AM	#20
Gulliver Foyle Muse Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Cork baaaiii Posts: 969	We all know the republican party's answer to this question: If the president is a Democrat then they're responsible even if the action has nothing to do with them (c.f. Benghazi); if the president is a republican then the buck never stops with him, even if the consequences are a direct result of his words or actions.

10th January 2023, 12:31 PM	#21
arayder Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 3,344	As one would suspect there is an existing office of ethics: Quote: The United States Office of Government Ethics (OGE) leads and oversees the executive branch ethics program which is at work every day in more than 130 agencies. The executive branch ethics program works to prevent financial conflicts of interest to help ensure government decisions are made free from personal financial bias. https://www.oge.gov
arayder Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 3,344