That's not in the current corporate business model. If you're leveraged to the hilt and want to borrow more money for something, you have to drive stock prices up. In a non-growth industry, this means bilking the consumers a bit more to fake growth and hoping not enough of them leave to offset the gain.
Can you show me the law he rewrote or ignored? As near as I can tell, actual dates of implementation were not in the law itself.
Subtitle B, Section 1101, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, paragraph a. He had no legal authority to extend that January 1 deadline but did, first to January 31 and then to March 15.
Spending bills and the budget are similar but not the same thing. Some things Congress just slaps a big wad of fungible money in the executive's hands and some it spells out specifically where the money has to go. Regardless, we would both have to read both to find out for certain which of us is correct. I don't know about you, but reading a large chunk of Obamacare was plenty for me for the day.
There are limits on executive orders, etc. so no, he's not a dictator.
Nice in theory but that's not how they're being used under the current administration. Just in the past few months they've been used to change Congressionally passed law to something that better suits the administration re: Obamacare, changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice which is the province of Congress, creating succession orders for several departments of government, changing pay rates all over the place, etc...
Have a look at the rest with an eye for "Does this power belong in the executive?"
Nice thought but it just wouldn't work here. To become a town here you have to have at least one commercial and one industrial business. If you later fall below that bar, any town nearby can annex you any time they like.
The problem is they also have to yoink a continuous tract of land between themselves and the town they want to annex. This being Oklahoma, there is enough open land between towns that it's just not feasible. Any town taking our worst speedtraps over would have to annex and supply town services to ten, twenty, maybe thirty miles worth of highway frontage to get there.
Personally, I think I'd prefer an good "we're going to take money from them and give it to you" system rather than dressing it up as social programs. It's at least more honest about what's being done. I just don't see anything coming from it but bad results though.
Replacing all the pet subsidies that taxes currently pay for with the basic income you mean? It could never happen. The kind of people who would vote in a basic income subsidy would be the same ones who would scream loudest if their other subsidies were taken away. In short, they would want both the current subsidies and the basic income subsidy. At the very least they would not stand for reduction in current subsidies.
As for democratizing how much spare time they have... I'll take freedom over democracy every single time. The entire reason pure democracy does not exist on this earth is that everyone with half a brain knows it would result instantly and without fail in tyranny of the masses. All minorities of any sort would be oppressed under it. Even proper fascism would be preferable.