View Full Version : So.....what do you see happening with the last two years of Obama's presidency?
gimmethesimplelife
11-5-14, 9:22pm
Does anyone think that the Republican sweep last night (11/04) will lead to less gridlock or more co-operation? Or basically more of the same games the next two years? I'm of the opinion that things will essentially remain the same but also that Obama is not going to achieve squat his last two years. I'm thinking status quo remains intact, just some of the players are now wearing the other teams jersey is all. What do you'all think? Rob
iris lilies
11-5-14, 9:28pm
Does anyone think that the Republican sweep last night (11/04) will lead to less gridlock or more co-operation? Or basically more of the same games the next two years? I'm of the opinion that things will essentially remain the same but also that Obama is not going to achieve squat his last two years. I'm thinking status quo remains intact, just some of the players are now wearing the other teams jersey is all. What do you'all think? Rob
ditto. It's screwed up, nothing new.
I've already seen two news media reports that the voters sent a message that they want "everyone to work together." I cannot figure out how the media surmised that message. Oh wait, it means that the mainstream liberal media is already setting their narrative for the Republican Congress to give The Prez whatever he wants and to blame the Republicans if they do not. That's "working together" in their tiny minds.
I can't see anything really happening on gun control, unless the Prez decides to use his "pen and a phone," which has already peeved enough people.
I think more will be accomplished, but that doesn't mean there will be more cooperation. The majority will now have the opportunity to send legislation to the President, although without a veto proof majority, who knows whether the will of the people will be realized.
When President Clinton found himself in a similar situation, he decided to cooperate and as a result he was able to take credit for a balanced budget, welfare reform and a host of other initiatives Congress placed on his desk. Time will tell whether or not our current President can rise to the occasion.
iris lilies
11-5-14, 10:54pm
I think more will be accomplished, but that doesn't mean there will be more cooperation. The majority will now have the opportunity to send legislation to the President, although without a veto proof majority, who knows whether the will of the people will be realized.
When President Clinton found himself in a similar situation, he decided to cooperate and as a result he was able to take credit for a balanced budget, welfare reform and a host of other initiatives Congress placed on his desk. Time will tell whether or not our current President can rise to the occasion.
Slick Willie was smarter than the current Occupant or at least politically astute-smart.
Here's a good article from The Atlantic magazine on this issue:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/what-will-the-gop-senate-be-like/381860/
Here's a good article from The Atlantic magazine on this issue:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/what-will-the-gop-senate-be-like/381860/
The problem with that article, which mirrors the thinking of many partisans, is that it assumes the President controls the legislative agenda and that any resistance to his will is obstructionism. The will of the people, represented by the House, and the states, represented by the Senate, is treated as an annoyance to their betters. Statists seem to think that's only fair what with co-equal branches/checks & balances/etc., being so bothersome, but the rest of us, well....we know better.
I, unfortunately, don't see much of anything happening. :(
The problem with that article, which mirrors the thinking of many partisans, is that it assumes the President controls the legislative agenda and that any resistance to his will is obstructionism. The will of the people, represented by the House, and the states, represented by the Senate, is treated as an annoyance to their betters. Statists seem to think that's only fair what with co-equal branches/checks & balances/etc., being so bothersome, but the rest of us, well....we know better.
It has been said that the President acknowledges three branches of government: the Executive, his pen and his phone. Now that six years of reality have stripped away the messianic pretensions of the man who stood in the faux Greek temple and announced that the seas could begin receding now, perhaps he can start acting like we live in a constitutional republic.
ApatheticNoMore
11-6-14, 12:52pm
I, unfortunately, don't see much of anything happening.
in that case it would be much like the first 6 years. Ok, ok the dubious ACA, a tiny and ineffective and not particularly well spent stimulus bill that almost any Prez would have passed given the dire economic situation. And lots of drones and of course continued eternal war. That's all I've got.
perhaps he can start acting like we live in a constitutional republic.
only we don't, what is there a plan to repeal of the NDAA etc.? (the whole Patriot act would be nice) It's like saying maybe he'll start acting like the world is flat, meanwhile the world continues to be round (I guess that's why it's called "acting" as in hollywood).
flowerseverywhere
11-6-14, 12:56pm
In reading various articles this morning on the agenda many of the republicans campaigned on, I hope that some of the more moderate measures at least can pass. I am thinking McConnell will have his hands full with the tea partners. Alan, you have made some good points.
I see more political gaming. Now that the players have changed I see the Congress and Senate pushing bills forward, not matter how likely they are to be vetoed, and then there will only be one party to blame for any perceived gridlock. Which of course will strengthen the Republican position in the next election. As such, immigration reform will stall. The top items I see getting a new life will be the XL pipeline, repealing Obamacare, and Social Security and Medicare reductions. I don't see much changing as it will just be a show to stack the deck for the 2016 elections. I see Obama compromising a little on some minor Obamacare issues and maybe the xl pipeline, but not much else.
I guess the question I have is what exactly is it that 'the people' want the government to do. If the various initiatives that won are any indication I'd say that among the things they think should be done are a higher minimum wage and marijuana legalization. Since congress isn't likely to work on either of those issues, and is much more likely to continue to work in the interests of their large campaign donors, regardless of whether they have a D or an R after their name, I'm frankly fine with them doing as little as possible.
I guess the question I have is what exactly is it that 'the people' want the government to do. If the various initiatives that won are any indication I'd say that among the things they think should be done are a higher minimum wage and marijuana legalization. I think a better question might be, why is the government involved in either? What I find interesting is that anyone would think that a government should control something like the minimum wage but should keep their hands off their marijuana. In reality, there is no either/or, government is in the business of control. Give them control over one and they'll take your control over the other.
Seems to me like minimum wage and pot legalization are happening at the state level just fine. Although pot remains a Class I controlled substance same as Heroin and LSD at the Federal level. Which is another example of Federal inability to act, either to reclassify it or enforce it.
gimmethesimplelife
11-6-14, 2:33pm
Seems to me like minimum wage and pot legalization are happening at the state level just fine. Although pot remains a Class I controlled substance same as Heroin and LSD at the Federal level. Which is another example of Federal inability to act, either to reclassify it or enforce it.I find it utterly fascinating that the Federal Government is looking the other way at people just randomly walking into a dispensary store in Denver or Seattle and buying weed to get legally high, even though this is against Federal law. I'm not saying this is wrong, what I am saying is that I'm surprised the Federal Government is looking the other way. From what I understand - now I have not been to Denver since 1986 so I'm relaying what I have read online - at DIA there are signs telling you that if you are carrying marijuana, it is illegal beyond a certain point and there is some kind of receptacle that you can dump it in voluntarily at that point with no consequences. After that point I guess it becomes illegal once more?
I have also read that police in Nebraska are pulling over cars with Colorado plates - past the Colorado state line in Nebraska, searching for pot for tickets and fines.....I have major major major issues with this unless signage was put up warning of consequences such as at Denver International Airport. But I digress here.
I really wonder how far the states can go to in setting their own laws and where the line is exactly where the Federal Government will step in and shut down the party? It seems the line has been extended in the US as far as marijuana goes. Rob
I really wonder how far the states can go to in setting their own laws and where the line is exactly where the Federal Government will step in and shut down the party? It seems the line has been extended in the US as far as marijuana goes. Rob
It's called Federalism, a concept that's not as popular as it used to be but may become resurgent as people wake up.
Teacher Terry
11-6-14, 3:08pm
My son lives in Kansas & they are doing the same as Nebraska. The pot better stay in Colo or other states will make $ off of it.
I find it utterly fascinating that the Federal Government is looking the other way...I'm surprised the Federal Government is looking the other way. From what I understand - now I have not been to Denver since 1986 so I'm relaying what I have read online - at DIA there are signs telling you that if you are carrying marijuana, it is illegal beyond a certain point and there is some kind of receptacle that you can dump it in voluntarily at that point with no consequences. After that point I guess it becomes illegal once more?
I have also read that police in Nebraska are pulling over cars with Colorado plates - past the Colorado state line in Nebraska, searching for pot for tickets and fines.....I have major major major issues with this unless signage was put up warning of consequences such as at Denver International Airport. But I digress here.
I really wonder how far the states can go to in setting their own laws and where the line is exactly where the Federal Government will step in and shut down the party? It seems the line has been extended in the US as far as marijuana goes. Rob
It's an interesting situation and a good question. DIA indeed has pot depositories so people can dump their weed before boarding a plane to somewhere where it is illegal. They are making edible pot products that look just like grocery store candies and I suspect people are disguising product to transport out of state regardless but don't know that as a fact. I'm not so sure about the Nebraska and Kansas highway stops. Unless our rights are undergoing some sort of police state change, I don't think they can indiscriminately search cars without reasonable cause (or permission). I imagine a lot of these arrests are of dummies who are either driving poorly and may be DUI or may have the odor of pot in their car.
I have also read that police in Nebraska are pulling over cars with Colorado plates - past the Colorado state line in Nebraska, searching for pot for tickets and fines.....
It wouldn't surprise me if they were doing traffic checkpoints similar to drunk driving checkpoints or the food checkpoints inside the CA border. But they shouldn't be able to go beyond asking if you have pot or sniffing for it, although I believe the courts have ruled, unfortunately, that it is acceptable to have a drug sniffing dog at the checkpoint and they can search the car if the dog reacts.
I'd be curious why they'd only be pulling over CO cars though. I would imagine a more likely scenario would be nebraskans or Kansas going to CO to make a purchase and then coming home with it.
In my thinking Keystone XL is a slam dunk. Increased drilling & fracking on fed lands probably are as well. Patriot Act repeal is just slightly less likely than hell freezing over (same as before). A few bills and a few vetoes for good theater, a more well rounded disregard for the environment & the working poor, both sides of the aisle on the lookout for new ways to increase subsidies as a thank you gesture to those who got them there... Status quo for the most part. I don't see anything interesting coming as long as the SCOTUS justices are (relatively) healthy.
I'd be curious why they'd only be pulling over CO cars though. I would imagine a more likely scenario would be nebraskans or Kansas going to CO to make a purchase and then coming home with it.
That's pretty much who they're grabbing.
I think a better question might be, why is the government involved in either? What I find interesting is that anyone would think that a government should control something like the minimum wage but should keep their hands off their marijuana. In reality, there is no either/or, government is in the business of control. Give them control over one and they'll take your control over the other.
I didn't offer a personal opinion one way or the other on the two issues I picked somewhat at random since they've been all over the web post election. I'm still curious about my original question. Everyone is focusing on whether our elected officials will get more done without seeming to give any thought as to what they think is going to get done and whether that's a particularly good thing. The government in China is great at 'getting things done' but I don't think many of us would particularly like to live under their style of government.
social security and medicare reductions will make sure the republicans are out............just my opinion.
The problem with that article, which mirrors the thinking of many partisans, is that it assumes the President controls the legislative agenda and that any resistance to his will is obstructionism. The will of the people, represented by the House, and the states, represented by the Senate, is treated as an annoyance to their betters.
Too many people seem to have fallen into the error of inverting how our government is supposed to work.
The President is not the King.
Questions:
- How many branches does our government have?
- What are their names and functions?
- Which branch crafts laws, and delegates the powers of regulation?
- Which branch is the President the head of?
Perhaps a refresher is in order, they used to play this Saturday mornings between cartoons:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nKyihoV9z8
Too many people seem to have fallen into the error of inverting how our government is supposed to work.
There is power in promoting that inversion, and too many people simply don't care as long as the free cheese deliveries arrive on time.
Questions:
- How many branches does our government have?
- What are their names and functions?
- Which branch crafts laws, and delegates the powers of regulation?
- Which branch is the President the head of?
I wonder if there's a relationship between the federal government's takeover of public education and the failure of public schools to provide that education? Their time lines do seem to intersect.
ApatheticNoMore
11-6-14, 5:36pm
There is power in promoting that inversion, and too many people simply don't care as long as the free cheese deliveries arrive on time.
You mean QE to the banks? Or are you talking about cheese people have at least partly contributed to all their lives? Although none of that is of primary importance. Because keeping one's wealth isn't primary, a system that doesn't destroy everything in it's path including the world is.
I wonder if there's a relationship between the federal government's takeover of public education and the failure of public schools to provide that education? Their time lines do seem to intersect.
I blame prop 13 for that in California, it's pretty darn clear to me (yes it's one of 3 obviously disastrous propositions despite my thinking voters generally tend toward good decision making with direct democracy - both can be true). Of course there were a lot of other failed ideas at the time, bussing didn't work as planned either, so none of those things helped. I don't think the Fed gov was even in education much then.
[ok the other two are the original 3 strikes, now partly repealed - shows voter learning there that it was corrected at least, when is the last time you saw your representatives learn anything? And the stupid bullet train idea]
http://teresainfortworth.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/ben_franklin-1-2-e1336601575917.jpg
http://40.media.tumblr.com/1a5140cf93f328dcf255287d2c41b71f/tumblr_n6u2nmmE8f1tp42tfo1_500.jpg
http://40.media.tumblr.com/1a5140cf93f328dcf255287d2c41b71f/tumblr_n6u2nmmE8f1tp42tfo1_500.jpg[/IMG]I really like this one,^^ with the partisan sheep voting for their favorite predator! Ha. Anyway--My prediction? Another crisis requiring another bailout; this time, for the major players in the Delivery Pizza Industry. The ones like Domino's, that are "too big to fail". Domino's, being a major customer of the cheese industry, got a large helping hand from the USDA several years ago! I am sure there will be critics and naysayers. But, as Pizza Hut Goes, so goes the country, and vice versa. See?
The problem with that article, which mirrors the thinking of many partisans, is that it assumes the President controls the legislative agenda and that any resistance to his will is obstructionism. The will of the people, represented by the House, and the states, represented by the Senate, is treated as an annoyance to their betters. Statists seem to think that's only fair what with co-equal branches/checks & balances/etc., being so bothersome, but the rest of us, well....we know better.
That's funny because I'm remembering how many times we heard the word "obstructionism" when the congress did not do what President GWBush wanted...
Would have like to have seen this sentiment expressed by Rs back then.
That's funny because I'm remembering how many times we heard the word "obstructionism" when the congress did not do what President GWBush wanted...
Would have like to have seen this sentiment expressed by Rs back then.
I'm sorry, I took that word from your article which referenced Republican obstructionism during the current administration twice and used the term gridlock four times. Other than that, my point was that Congress is charged with the responsibility to legislate through debate and consensus, not to provide a rubber stamp for the executive's wishes. The latter is better suited to dictatorships than democratic republics. I'm not sure everyone gets that.
iris lilies
11-6-14, 10:20pm
I didn't offer a personal opinion one way or the other on the two issues I picked somewhat at random since they've been all over the web post election. I'm still curious about my original question. Everyone is focusing on whether our elected officials will get more done without seeming to give any thought as to what they think is going to get done and whether that's a particularly good thing. The government in China is great at 'getting things done' but I don't think many of us would particularly like to live under their style of government.
I'm with ya, babe. I am probably content with gridlock and "not getting things done" in D.C. That's pretty much been my position for the past few years.
Now, I have to confess that I am curious and a bit happy/excited to see what the Republicans will deliver to the desk of President Obama for signature. But I've concluded that they will not even try to balance the budget, to gt this spending under control. It's not on their radar. And anything else doesn't interest me much. The repeal of the ACA won't happen in toto. Piecemeal crap, maybe. That will make it Swiss cheese full of more holes.
I wonder if there's a relationship between the federal government's takeover of public education and the failure of public schools to provide that education? Their time lines do seem to intersect.
I think the time line between that intersection and inextricability was very short indeed.
I'm sorry, I took that word from your article which referenced Republican obstructionism during the current administration twice and used the term gridlock four times. Other than that, my point was that Congress is charged with the responsibility to legislate through debate and consensus, not to provide a rubber stamp for the executive's wishes. The latter is better suited to dictatorships than democratic republics. I'm not sure everyone gets that.
As I understand it, the President is a legislative leader who recommends laws and guides congress in it's lawmaking activities, although the point is well taken that his recommendations are not always within congresses wishes. So within the checks and balances he isn't a rubber stamp for Congress either. Maybe that is what you're saying, anyway.
As I understand it, the President is a legislative leader who recommends laws and guides congress in it's lawmaking activities, ...
Odd, that's not how it works in the US.
flowerseverywhere
11-7-14, 8:05pm
Roger, please read this from USA.gov about how federal laws are made
http://answers.usa.gov/system/templates/selfservice/USAGov/#!portal/1012/article/2725/How-Federal-Laws-Are-Made
the sentiment that more could get done is because with both Congress and the Senate being republican, they will agree on bills which will then go for presidential consideration.
here is some info from the same source about executive order
http://answers.usa.gov/system/templates/selfservice/USAGov/#!portal/1012/article/4436/Presidential-Executive-Orders
Our system of checks and balances is supposed to insure no one becomes a dictator among other things
Our system of checks and balances is supposed to insure no one becomes a dictator among other things
Tell that to the Prez who said he had a phone and a pen and would use them (executive orders) if he couldn't get Congress to pass the laws HE wanted.
Tell that to the Prez who said he had a phone and a pen and would use them (executive orders) if he couldn't get Congress to pass the laws HE wanted.
Are you referring to GWB? because I believe he issued more executive orders than any other president to date.
flowerseverywhere
11-7-14, 10:46pm
Tell that to the Prez who said he had a phone and a pen and would use them (executive orders) if he couldn't get Congress to pass the laws HE wanted.
you do know that Bus 2, Clinton, Reagan, carter, FDRFord, Roosevelt, Nixon, Kennedy and Eisenhower to name some all had more executive orders per year than Obama.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
this Forbes article is interesting too
http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardsalsman/2013/01/28/when-it-comes-to-abuse-of-presidential-power-obama-is-a-mere-piker/
look into it a little. Very surprising, isn't it.
It's Obummer's being so danged blatant about it, not the actual numbers...
I think to analyze the impact of executive orders, you have to look at more than just the pure number of orders. You have to look at the actual content. This is too much work for most.
I'd expect a competent executive to issue a fair number of them, about routine matters of business. It's when they overreach that we have a problem...
flowerseverywhere
11-8-14, 4:15am
It's Obummer's being so danged blatant about it, not the actual numbers...
Are there any actual orders that you find disturbing? Or just his attitude?
flowerseverywhere
11-8-14, 4:27am
I think to analyze the impact of executive orders, you have to look at more than just the pure number of orders. You have to look at the actual content. This is too much work for most.
I'd expect a competent executive to issue a fair number of them, about routine matters of business. It's when they overreach that we have a problem...
As usual a sensible opinion. In my years as a working mom things like executive orders were low on my list of priorities, only so many hours in the day although I always vote and tried to research the candidates and issues to the best of my ability. Now that I have time, I find history fascinating. Looking more in depth at US history I have found many fascinating and sometimes disturbing things. And many things I thought to be true are not. But I am in the infancy of my learning.
I hear the word " overreach" but there is rarely an example. Can you give some examples?
Are there any actual orders that you find disturbing? Or just his attitude?
It's both. He's made it clear that if Congress doesn't do his bidding, he'll take matters into his own hands.
If he actually does issue an EO granting amnesty for all illegal immigrants (the non-criminal ones) as he's promised, that is a big problem. That's the sort of thing that needs to be done legislatively, as was done in the 80s. But since Congress didn't pass immigration legislation, he's going to do an end run around Congress. He's taking legislation-making into his own hands, rather than actually following the process.
He's made it clear the structural design of the Senate puts him and the Dems at a disadvantage. This is a conservative site, but I can't help that.
“Obviously, the nature of the Senate means that California has the same number of Senate seats as Wyoming. That puts us at a disadvantage,” Mr. Obama said. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/23/obama-blames-structural-design-congress-gridlock/
Going back to some of the original discussion about the roles of Congress and of the President for drafting new legislation, I'm not too aware of any really impactful legislation Congress has initiated for Obama's terms. The whole ball of wax seems dysfunctional to me. Congress argues about trivia and then Obama tries to get something off the ground by pulling political strings.
ApatheticNoMore
11-8-14, 12:19pm
In my years as a working mom things like executive orders were low on my list of priorities, only so many hours in the day although I always vote and tried to research the candidates and issues to the best of my ability.
I think they are rationally low on most people's list of priorities. Personally how would it have changed my 3rd party vote in the last 2 presidential elections? And how would it be more important than the reasons I did vote 3rd party: like the President deciding whom to KILL all by himself with terror Tuesdays and Romney not seeming to be against it? And how would it be more important that Congressional approval not having been needed for war for 60 years? Voting and researching is all good but it makes more sense to focus on candidates and issues where it actually matters, that would be strongly things like state referendums and strongly not things like the President of course, there's reason enough to know you aren't voting for either of the two mainstream candidates without EO use.
And no I'd never decide who to vote for for Senate or House based mostly on my opinion of the President, instead of their congressional voting record. I mean I think it does condemn the party apparatus as a whole not to condemn someone like Obama. But their actual voting record is far more important.
ApatheticNoMore
11-8-14, 2:27pm
The main reason the Constitution even has any cache, popularity, public support, I don't know, in most people's minds is the Bill of Rights that was tacked on to it (yea it kinda was). Most such rights being very widely accepted globally now along with many others (which is not to say practiced by every country on earth of course). If the bill of rights is mostly null and void (NDAA nulls the 5th - a kill list that even applies to Americans does too, NSA nulls the 4th, plenty of attacks on journalism in recent years against the 1st etc.) then all it is is a blueprint for one type of representative democracy (using those terms very loosely of course), but very far from the most favorable one IMO, a parliamentary form of representative government would probably be much preferable for instance.
Seeing the U.S. as a government as mapped in the Constitution isn't even a good MAP for reality, it's exploring Siberia with a map of Florida (and would need a straight out revolution to even be implemented as an ideal at this point probably - and if we're going to have a revolution we may as well at least up date a few things for the 21st century). To map reality: sure there's been amendments so things have changed like popular vote for the Senate but those changes are pretty out in the open and the Constitution was never meant to be entirely unchangable so that's at least within the spirit of the Consitution, sure it's nice that slavery is no longer openly legal. But also add in things like Congressional approval no longer needed for war - a de facto change to the Constitution without an amendment, Bill of Rights largely null and void in reality now, unelected government agencies making legislative decisions (I don't disapprove of all of these agencies - I'm just pointing out the reality), deep state like NSA, CIA, etc. operating ABOVE the law and won't defer to congress whom they in theory report to (they spy on and undermine the Senate when it investigates them, isn't that AT LEAST as important and unconstitutional as executive orders?), lobbyist writing legislation (that bill link made it seem like congresspeople propose their own legislation - but it's often entirely written by lobbiest), etc. etc. etc.
flowerseverywhere
11-9-14, 10:00am
It's both. He's made it clear that if Congress doesn't do his bidding, he'll take matters into his own hands.
If he actually does issue an EO granting amnesty for all illegal immigrants (the non-criminal ones) as he's promised, that is a big problem. That's the sort of thing that needs to be done legislatively, as was done in the 80s. But since Congress didn't pass immigration legislation, he's going to do an end run around Congress. He's taking legislation-making into his own hands, rather than actually following the process.
He's made it clear the structural design of the Senate puts him and the Dems at a disadvantage. This is a conservative site, but I can't help that. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/23/obama-blames-structural-design-congress-gridlock/
Yes, blanket amnesty would be a far overreach. Let's hope the process works the way it was set up.
I don't blame the set up myself but rather money. Legislating to reward campaign donors or who will vote for you is a far cry from " for the people".
I think to analyze the impact of executive orders, you have to look at more than just the pure number of orders. You have to look at the actual content. This is too much work for most.
I'd expect a competent executive to issue a fair number of them, about routine matters of business. It's when they overreach that we have a problem...
+1
So I wonder, which executive order(s) have Obama signed that is overreach? which ones exactly? Cause from where I sit, his orders have in fact been to get the 'everyday' work done that the republicans refused to do. They have obstructed (and here I use the term for what it is...stopping or holding up everyday business that has gone on for as long as our government has existed WITHOUT opposition obstruction) Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times without opposition drama!
My prediction for the last 2 years? Mostly repeal, investigate, and of course impeach! For what I'm not really sure, but I'm sure the party that impeached the last democratic president for getting a blow job will come up with something!
If they do send anything to his desk, be sure it will look 'good' on the surface but be so stuffed with outrageous additions he won't be able to sign it, giving the republicans just what they want. The appearance of trying to 'do good' for the country without actually having anything at all ever attached to Obama's name that is in fact good for the country. Of course you can count on more tax breaks for the wealthy, less anything for the least among us, and nasty greedy self centered Ayn Rand type legislation. (Wow! We all read Atlas Shrugged when we were 16 and realized by the time we were 18 that the woman was totally full of sh*t)
I suppose the bright spot is going to be the side show of McConnell and Cruz fighting for supreme control. And watching Kansas go down even further. (Just when you think they couldn't get any lower in, oh, everything, they managed, by re-electing Brownback, to drain just a little more from the pool)
it's going to be a bumpy ride, and things will definitely get worse, but stupid is as stupid does. If this election shows nothing else, it shows that ignorant people will always be willing, and enthusiastic participants in their own demise.
ApatheticNoMore
11-9-14, 5:38pm
I have yet to hear any proposals that even look good superficially. If they are out there, I haven't heard them. Things like trade deals that in the best case scenario mean more jobs shipped away and in the worst case and almost certain scenario mean corporate rule without the ability to have any democratic (small d) say over it at any level of government, do not even look good. More war doesn't even look good (yea I realize Obama is up to the same thing with troops in Iraq). Cutting social security doesn't look good.
I think to analyze the impact of executive orders, you have to look at more than just the pure number of orders. You have to look at the actual content. This is too much work for most.
I'd expect a competent executive to issue a fair number of them, about routine matters of business. It's when they overreach that we have a problem...
It would be interesting, then, to compare Obama and say GW or Reagan on their "overreach" and see some examples.
Reagan's executive order 12333 was the fundamental document authorizing data collection by American intelligence. Bush used it to give the NSA permission to wiretap American citizens. Jefferson used it for the Louisiana Purchase. One thing about an executive order is that it seems like another president down the line can issue an executive order to reverse an earlier executive order. If I have my history right, The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order, and then Lincoln pulled many political strings to get approval from Congress so it wouldn't be reversed later. At least that's how they showed it in the movie.
It would be interesting, then, to compare Obama and say GW or Reagan on their "overreach" and see some examples.
I think they all engage in the practice at times.
Here's one of my favorites:
http://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/todays-doc/?dod-date=219
Billy Maxwell
11-10-14, 12:11am
I foresee Republicans turning on themselves. Somethings will move through at first, then the reality of hyper-competitive America will kick in.
It is the same problem the Dems suffered from recently. Our form of government has failed as a natural progression of being a successful nation for so long. We had a much higher standard of living than England before the Revolution. We were not a poor colony. Most in the nation today have no new horizon to move over to now. Jefferson predicted that. You do not want to know what he assumed would happen next! The 1% has no plan to share its influence and power. I expect that 1% to shrink even just as the bottom is rotting faster and faster. Mayans, Rome, China, China, China, Great Britain how many repeats in history do you need. Each success cycle has less hang time.
If this election shows nothing else, it shows that ignorant people will always be willing, and enthusiastic participants in their own demise.
I take a more optimistic view. It shows that people can learn from their mistakes.
I never had much use for the "What's the Matter with Kansas?" meme. It takes as it's premise that you have a superior grasp of Kansans' best interests than they do. It also presupposes that the purpose of democracy is to vote interests rather than convictions. But then again, I'm an optimist.
I take a more optimistic view. It shows that people can learn from their mistakes.
I never had much use for the "What's the Matter with Kansas?" meme. It takes as it's premise that you have a superior grasp of Kansans' best interests than they do. It also presupposes that the purpose of democracy is to vote interests rather than convictions. But then again, I'm an optimist.
Yeah, I think they are supposed to vote interest. The interest of their constituents. I seriously doubt the good people of Kansas wanted to be downgraded.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/06/usa-kansas-ratings-idUSL2N0QC1MO20140806
Pesky thing about taxes...they are needed to do the normal everyday housekeeping of a state/nation. Sure, they can drive on gravel roads, and who needs a library when amazon has about every book you want? And fire and police protection? Do we really need that? And a few hundred other things that our taxes do. But apparently Kansas doesn't need that. Trickle down and all...
If Kansas could be a libertarian/right wing utopia, we could all sit up and take notice. And we would. They'd be the first, truly, in the entire world, based on these Ayn Rand right wing utopia ideals. Cause there isn't any examples, at all world wide, of these policies working to the good of the people. Only the top 1-2%.
But maybe that's what you're talking about. The convictions of the top %
I'll be watching, and others will be watching. I hope the idiots who voted him in again are watching. But that's the thing about idiots. They don't watch. Or listen. Or think. Or learn. They just vote on bumper sticker slogans and wonder why their lives suck.:(
Yeah, I think they are supposed to vote interest. The interest of their constituents. I seriously doubt the good people of Kansas wanted to be downgraded.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/06/usa-kansas-ratings-idUSL2N0QC1MO20140806
Pesky thing about taxes...they are needed to do the normal everyday housekeeping of a state/nation. Sure, they can drive on gravel roads, and who needs a library when amazon has about every book you want? And fire and police protection? Do we really need that? And a few hundred other things that our taxes do. But apparently Kansas doesn't need that. Trickle down and all...
If Kansas could be a libertarian/right wing utopia, we could all sit up and take notice. And we would. They'd be the first, truly, in the entire world, based on these Ayn Rand right wing utopia ideals. Cause there isn't any examples, at all world wide, of these policies working to the good of the people. Only the top 1-2%.
But maybe that's what you're talking about. The convictions of the top %
I'll be watching, and others will be watching. I hope the idiots who voted him in again are watching. But that's the thing about idiots. They don't watch. Or listen. Or think. Or learn. They just vote on bumper sticker slogans and wonder why their lives suck.:(
The voters of Kansas had a chance to unseat Mr. Brownback and elected not to. Surely not all 423,666 of the people who voted to keep him in office are the cartoonish troglodytes of your imagination. I’ll bet there aren’t even that many copies of Atlas Shrugged in the entire state.
Too many people seem to have fallen into the error of inverting how our government is supposed to work.
The President is not the King.
Questions:
- How many branches does our government have?
- What are their names and functions?
- Which branch crafts laws, and delegates the powers of regulation?
- Which branch is the President the head of?
Perhaps a refresher is in order, they used to play this Saturday mornings between cartoons:
There's been an update:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEYlwE9M668
gimmethesimplelife
11-24-14, 12:08pm
Something that bothers yours truly here about the whole Obama Executive Order Thing. (This coming from someone originally very excited about Obama getting into office, voted for him twice, and now am less enthused about him holding the job) I have read in USA Today that Obama has actually been light on the pen with Executive Orders as compared to prior Presidents and that Bush No. 2 actually pulled the Executive Order deal more often than Obama has. Sometimes it truly does seem to me that our political system is broken as the two parties just literally can not and/or will not cooperate and compromise and seem locked in fruitless taxpayer/burrowed money from China or elsewhere financed fruitless war with one another.
i don't understand why Obama's immigration plan has caused such uproar as he has not granted a path to amnesty/citizenship (correct me if I am wrong) and his plan allows children who were brought into this country illegally to remain here (something I am very much in favor of - many of these children would be like fish out of water if deported to their home country as the majority of their upbringing has been in the USA).
In the past, just when I feel sorry for Obama, he does something that drys up my sympathy and I have posted my disillusionment with his behaviors/decisions here more than once. Even as one of the few liberals here I have felt this way. I'm thinking on immigration however, I'll stick by him as he didn't go too far with his plan in my book - this coming from someone raised by an immigrant and from someone who is dating a (legal status) immigrant. Immigration is a topic dear to my heart and I also live in a state where this topic is a big deal. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
11-24-14, 12:16pm
So I wonder, which executive order(s) have Obama signed that is overreach? which ones exactly? Cause from where I sit, his orders have in fact been to get the 'everyday' work done that the republicans refused to do. They have obstructed (and here I use the term for what it is...stopping or holding up everyday business that has gone on for as long as our government has existed WITHOUT opposition obstruction) Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times without opposition drama!
My prediction for the last 2 years? Mostly repeal, investigate, and of course impeach! For what I'm not really sure, but I'm sure the party that impeached the last democratic president for getting a blow job will come up with something!
If they do send anything to his desk, be sure it will look 'good' on the surface but be so stuffed with outrageous additions he won't be able to sign it, giving the republicans just what they want. The appearance of trying to 'do good' for the country without actually having anything at all ever attached to Obama's name that is in fact good for the country. Of course you can count on more tax breaks for the wealthy, less anything for the least among us, and nasty greedy self centered Ayn Rand type legislation. (Wow! We all read Atlas Shrugged when we were 16 and realized by the time we were 18 that the woman was totally full of sh*t)
I suppose the bright spot is going to be the side show of McConnell and Cruz fighting for supreme control. And watching Kansas go down even further. (Just when you think they couldn't get any lower in, oh, everything, they managed, by re-electing Brownback, to drain just a little more from the pool)
it's going to be a bumpy ride, and things will definitely get worse, but stupid is as stupid does. If this election shows nothing else, it shows that ignorant people will always be willing, and enthusiastic participants in their own demise.Peggy, I agree with your post here and most especially your first paragraph. I have read in USA Today that Obama has actually been lighter on the Executive Order pen than prior Presidents and I'm disillusioned with the uproar about his "abuse" of the Executive Order deal. Seriously, I have been disillusioned with Obama in the past but on this one, I believe every Republican in the Senate and the House owes him an apology. Won't happen but on this one the Republicans need to zip the lip and get the facts straight before pandering to their voter base with these kinds of sound bites. Just my seventeen cents. Rob
I'm thinking on immigration however, I'll stick by him as he didn't go too far with his plan in my book
It seems to me that it isn't so much what he did, but how he did it. The office of President has been transformed to that of neo-Monarch with the President essentially decreeing that the legislature "give me exactly what I want or I'll do it myself", which violates every definition of a Constitutional Republic.
I'm reminded of Ayn Rand's character, John Galt who observed "It is your need that gives you a claim to rewards", which seems to be the way the government now works. Process be damned!
I think it will be interesting to see the downstream effects of this type of action. Those who applaud the President's actions now may reconsider when the next President follows suit, perhaps by simply declaring that the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate will not be enforced or that estate taxes will no longer be collected, or any number of similar actions dependent upon the President's vow to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
gimmethesimplelife
11-24-14, 12:51pm
It seems to me that it isn't so much what he did, but how he did it. The office of President has been transformed to that of neo-Monarch with the President essentially decreeing that the legislature "give me exactly what I want or I'll do it myself", which violates every definition of a Constitutional Republic.
I'm reminded of Ayn Rand's character, John Galt who observed "It is your need that gives you a claim to rewards", which seems to be the way the government now works. Process be damned!
I think it will be interesting to see the downstream effects of this type of action. Those who applaud the President's actions now may reconsider when the next President follows suit, perhaps by simply declaring that the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate will not be enforced or that estate taxes will no longer be collected, or any number of similar actions dependent upon the President's vow to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."Alan, I'm honestly making an effort here to try to understand where you are coming from.....Please correct me if I am wrong, ok? What I am getting out of your post is that you are not so against Obama declaring executive orders (even though he has done this less than Bush No. 2 did) but the tone of and the manner by which they are done? Or is it the content of the Executive Orders tend to be hot topics? Or? I know you are not the only one out there who is less than pleased with Obama's executive orders so I'm trying to understand. Rob
Alan, I'm honestly making an effort here to try to understand where you are coming from.....Please correct me if I am wrong, ok? What I am getting out of your post is that you are not so against Obama declaring executive orders (even though he has done this less than Bush No. 2 did) but the tone of and the manner by which they are done? Or is it the content of the Executive Orders tend to be hot topics? Or? I know you are not the only one out there who is less than pleased with Obama's executive orders so I'm trying to understand. Rob
I don't really care how many executive orders a President may issue as long as they fall in line with his sole responsibility to "faithfully execute.....". What I have a problem with is the President's usurpation of the legislative process in order to advance an agenda, regardless of what that agenda entails. There can't be any doubt that's exactly what President Obama has done. He has publicly stated that if the legislature gives him exactly what he wants, he will rescind the order and if not, the order stands. Earlier I referred to that form of government as monarch, but it's really the sign of a tyrant.
It is terribly short sighted to forgive an action because you favor the particular result. A longer view would show that the action itself poses the greatest threat.
ApatheticNoMore
11-24-14, 1:53pm
It's a bit inconsistent to get upset with executive orders because they aren't representative democracy but not notice that nothing that really matters (to the powers that be, not to little peons) is run by the principles of representative democracy. Wars are not voted on by Congress and haven't been since WWII. (Congress does vote funding eventually - Dems fully funded W's wars didn't you notice - although they could just be funded via money printing). Billions flowing to the banks in bailouts every month aren't voted on (because Fed policy isn't voted on directly). However if the peons need unemployment insurance extended or food stamps it has to go to a vote. You begin to get the idea the whole system just exists to stop any legislation that might be favorable to the peons while allowing the powers that be free reign to do whatever they want without input.
Do I think Obama's executive order on immigration is out of line? Kinda. But it seems there is precedent: http://www.businessinsider.com/reagan-and-bush-made-immigration-executive-orders-2014-11
But still maybe one should ask: if Obama can pass an executive order on immigration, why can't he pass one say permanently blocking Keystone XL or any other policy one would like implement? Ask that next time Obama is helpless before the GOP congress ("the GOP made me do it"). Why he seems to be alternately helpless and all-powerful. Are there any legal reasons why an executive order on immigration is ok and one on say Keystone XL would not be? There is perhaps more precedence for the latter, which I suppose is something. But actual legal reasons I'm not sure.
Why people might be opposed to immigration itself. Well one does enter various dangers with that question, on the liberal left all questioning of immigration is automatically labeled "racism" but on the other hand (no not the other side because I don't' think it's confined to one ideology) very subtle (or overt) racism may exist. But why people might be against it? Well one may as well understand that the parts that deal with skilled immigration are driven by Silicon Valley billionaires so they can have cheap tech labor. Facebook's Zuckerberg has a whole lobbying organization for this. Of course everything actually depends on the numbers of immigrants, a small number would of course be insignificant, but tech (and maybe other STEM fields as well) is not a field that has much of an employment future in my view. It's one of the few fields left with middle class income. So it's potentially wiping out another portion of the middle class. Though there is some possibility those jobs might be outsourced anyway. Outsourcing to India for tech work is getting so passe by the way, they now outsource with tech teams in China (which whoever is left here may communicate with).
But what about low skilled immigrants from south of the border, there is less evidence American's will take those jobs (however they might if the pay was enough!). Though I'm not entirely convinced it has no effect on jobs on the lower income level either. However unlike H1Bs and other high skilled programs that are very deliberate programs to let immigrants in and out that can be turned on and off at will pretty much, it is harder to stop people from crossing the border and working under the table. H1Bs work above the table.
Meanwhile immigration becomes a problem of overpopulation. We're definitely beyond the population the existing government social services, roads, the existing housing stock, can support at this point some places.
Perhaps I should mitigate this one with something nice about immigrants? Eh they're just people like you and me. In honest truth no less entitled to anything good or bad in life than we are. But a human being in a competitive dog eat dog world will fight if they think immigrants will take one's livelihood or something (whether they are much of a threat depends on the numbers of immigrants of course). For which I expect "good more people falling out of the middle class, maybe the world will change, the worst the better!". As if that bet always ends well, it's as likely to turn fascist right as left in reality. And it's just as likely to lead to people living in degraded conditions for years as to lead to any revolution.
My take on the situation is that we have something like 11 million illegal aliens in the country that Congress does not want to address but has instead buried it's head in the sand. The logistics of departing them is overwhelming and the government has been in a gridlock to do anything at all. The Senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill almost two years ago which the House under Boehner has pretty much ignored, either to approve or address. So Obama steps forward and puts a relatively mild plan in place. I don't see the problem.
All of the talk about overstepping constitutional boundaries is just sword rattling and bending public opinion for the next election. It would be more productive for Congress to get to work and do something productive. I might also suggest that the president and Congress work with more cooperation and both parties share some blame on that one, but that doesn't seem likely.
All of the talk about overstepping constitutional boundaries is just sword rattling and bending public opinion for the next election.
Could be. I certainly remember the issue of executive over-reach as a major talking point during the 2008 elections and I remember President Obama agreeing with me on the issue of Presidential interference in the legislative process regarding immigration in 2008, 09, 10, 11, 12 and 13. But, there aren't any more elections before his term ends, so, in the immortal words of Eric Cartman "I do what I want!!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjCHD41I7ok
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.