|
|
|
|
I really hate American parties--we're stuck in a web of either left social and economic, or right social and economic. I'm more of a moderate/conservative in terms of government economics, but most of the right wants to shit all over social issues (ie: locally, this bill, which basically says my employer can't outright fire me for being trans, and allows me to use the correct bathroom accommodations for the gender I've been presenting as for many many years.) So, I either have to stay with the people that will try and give me equal rights, while following economic practices I don't always agree with, or enjoy a better economic policy while the party in leadership tries to dehumanize me.
Oh well, Obama +1 from me.
|
I just want to mention something about people arguing if unemployment are numbers are accurate or not. Thing is, whatever is reported doesn't really matter.
We could say hypothetically that Obama actually does tell the BLS to lie and crank employment down to 5% and say 400,000 jobs are created every month. However, people, voters, are still actually unemployed. When voting actually starts, they'll vote whatever reflects their economic situation, not based on what some stat says. There's nothing to gain from inflating the stats, except the risk of a embarrassing and unexpected loss.
|
|
|
i personally will probably not vote. To be honest i think Obama is a shoe-in for this election despite opinions on whether or not hes been doing a good thing.
|
They're close enough that I wouldn't be devastated if either were elected, but I like Obama's foreign policy a lot more than Romney's, so he gets my vote.
|
On April 23 2012 14:46 seiferoth10 wrote:
They're close enough that I wouldn't be devastated if either were elected, but I like Obama's foreign policy a lot more than Romney's, so he gets my vote.
What do you take to be the difference?
|
Obama's future strategy?
Each time, Mr. Obama has emphasized the fact that he is bypassing lawmakers. When he announced a cut in refinancing fees for federally insured mortgages last month, for example, he said: “If Congress refuses to act, I’ve said that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to act without them.”
Aides say many more such moves are coming. Not just a short-term shift in governing style and a re-election strategy, Mr. Obama’s increasingly assertive use of executive action could foreshadow pitched battles over the separation of powers in his second term, should he win and Republicans consolidate their power in Congress.
Many conservatives have denounced Mr. Obama’s new approach. But William G. Howell, a University of Chicago political science professor and author of “Power Without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action,” said Mr. Obama’s use of executive power to advance domestic policies that could not pass Congress was not new historically. Still, he said, because of Mr. Obama’s past as a critic of executive unilateralism, his transformation is remarkable.
“What is surprising is that he is coming around to responding to the incentives that are built into the institution of the presidency,” Mr. Howell said. “Even someone who has studied the Constitution and holds it in high regard — he, too, is going to exercise these unilateral powers because his long-term legacy and his standing in the polls crucially depend upon action.”
The bipartisan history of executive aggrandizement in recent decades complicates Republican criticism. In February, two conservative advocacy groups — Crossroads GPS and the American Action Network — sponsored a symposium to discuss what they called “the unprecedented expansion of executive power during the past three years.” It reached an awkward moment during a talk with a former attorney general, Edwin Meese III, and a former White House counsel, C. Boyden Gray.
“It’s kind of ironic you have Boyden and me here because when we were with the executive branch, we were probably the principal proponents of executive power under President Reagan and then President George H. W. Bush,” Mr. Meese said, quickly adding that the presidential prerogatives they sought to protect, unlike Mr. Obama’s, were valid.
Source
I don't like it. Make the case to the public and show some leadership. Don't create precedents that the next right wing administration can abuse. I don't want to see this type of executive power from either side of the aisle.
|
On April 23 2012 16:19 screamingpalm wrote:Obama's future strategy? Show nested quote +
Each time, Mr. Obama has emphasized the fact that he is bypassing lawmakers. When he announced a cut in refinancing fees for federally insured mortgages last month, for example, he said: “If Congress refuses to act, I’ve said that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to act without them.”
Aides say many more such moves are coming. Not just a short-term shift in governing style and a re-election strategy, Mr. Obama’s increasingly assertive use of executive action could foreshadow pitched battles over the separation of powers in his second term, should he win and Republicans consolidate their power in Congress.
Many conservatives have denounced Mr. Obama’s new approach. But William G. Howell, a University of Chicago political science professor and author of “Power Without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action,” said Mr. Obama’s use of executive power to advance domestic policies that could not pass Congress was not new historically. Still, he said, because of Mr. Obama’s past as a critic of executive unilateralism, his transformation is remarkable.
“What is surprising is that he is coming around to responding to the incentives that are built into the institution of the presidency,” Mr. Howell said. “Even someone who has studied the Constitution and holds it in high regard — he, too, is going to exercise these unilateral powers because his long-term legacy and his standing in the polls crucially depend upon action.”
The bipartisan history of executive aggrandizement in recent decades complicates Republican criticism. In February, two conservative advocacy groups — Crossroads GPS and the American Action Network — sponsored a symposium to discuss what they called “the unprecedented expansion of executive power during the past three years.” It reached an awkward moment during a talk with a former attorney general, Edwin Meese III, and a former White House counsel, C. Boyden Gray.
“It’s kind of ironic you have Boyden and me here because when we were with the executive branch, we were probably the principal proponents of executive power under President Reagan and then President George H. W. Bush,” Mr. Meese said, quickly adding that the presidential prerogatives they sought to protect, unlike Mr. Obama’s, were valid.
SourceI don't like it. Make the case to the public and show some leadership. Don't create precedents that the next right wing administration can abuse. I don't want to see this type of executive power from either side of the aisle.
I see a lot of this as the fault of the media and how people buy into the images they sell. Somehow we have cultivated this perception that literally every problem, domestic and abroad, is the President's fault. As a result, as one should expect, the presidency has extended its influence to try and manage... everything. We as a country need to correct our perception of politics and the politicians will conform automatically.
|
His acting without the lawmakers is the only way anything will get done because the Republican party refuses to pass any legislation that comes from Obama, no matter how much he's willing to compromise. Remember the government shut downs over budgetary issues last year? The Republican party has been playing chicken with the American people, and if they win then it will vindicate them for doing so.
We, as the American people, cannot allow temper tantrums like that to go rewarded. They can't simply sit in congress and do nothing for years just because they don't like that they lost the executive office and then expect us to give it back to them.
So yea, Obama vows that he'll do everything he can to run the country without them if they're going to purposefully stall government. There aren't any options left. Either he gives in (compromises) and he's criticized for having no backbone, or he just tries to run without congress and then he's criticized for being corrupt. This wouldn't have happened if the American people hadn't gotten so impatient and given legislative power back over to an embittered Republican party.
|
On April 23 2012 16:48 Velocirapture wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 16:19 screamingpalm wrote:Obama's future strategy?
Each time, Mr. Obama has emphasized the fact that he is bypassing lawmakers. When he announced a cut in refinancing fees for federally insured mortgages last month, for example, he said: “If Congress refuses to act, I’ve said that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to act without them.”
Aides say many more such moves are coming. Not just a short-term shift in governing style and a re-election strategy, Mr. Obama’s increasingly assertive use of executive action could foreshadow pitched battles over the separation of powers in his second term, should he win and Republicans consolidate their power in Congress.
Many conservatives have denounced Mr. Obama’s new approach. But William G. Howell, a University of Chicago political science professor and author of “Power Without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action,” said Mr. Obama’s use of executive power to advance domestic policies that could not pass Congress was not new historically. Still, he said, because of Mr. Obama’s past as a critic of executive unilateralism, his transformation is remarkable.
“What is surprising is that he is coming around to responding to the incentives that are built into the institution of the presidency,” Mr. Howell said. “Even someone who has studied the Constitution and holds it in high regard — he, too, is going to exercise these unilateral powers because his long-term legacy and his standing in the polls crucially depend upon action.”
The bipartisan history of executive aggrandizement in recent decades complicates Republican criticism. In February, two conservative advocacy groups — Crossroads GPS and the American Action Network — sponsored a symposium to discuss what they called “the unprecedented expansion of executive power during the past three years.” It reached an awkward moment during a talk with a former attorney general, Edwin Meese III, and a former White House counsel, C. Boyden Gray.
“It’s kind of ironic you have Boyden and me here because when we were with the executive branch, we were probably the principal proponents of executive power under President Reagan and then President George H. W. Bush,” Mr. Meese said, quickly adding that the presidential prerogatives they sought to protect, unlike Mr. Obama’s, were valid.
SourceI don't like it. Make the case to the public and show some leadership. Don't create precedents that the next right wing administration can abuse. I don't want to see this type of executive power from either side of the aisle. I see a lot of this as the fault of the media and how people buy into the images they sell. Somehow we have cultivated this perception that literally every problem, domestic and abroad, is the President's fault. As a result, as one should expect, the presidency has extended its influence to try and manage... everything. We as a country need to correct our perception of politics and the politicians will conform automatically.
Anyone naive enough to think that one human can, is, or should be responsible for an entire nation's achievements and failures, salvation and welfare, and happiness and misery is either a liar, a fool, or a fucking jackass.
Maybe instead of searching for a messiah, Americans should try electing a president.
It's not just the media's fault, it's everyone's.
|
On April 23 2012 16:48 Velocirapture wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 16:19 screamingpalm wrote:Obama's future strategy?
Each time, Mr. Obama has emphasized the fact that he is bypassing lawmakers. When he announced a cut in refinancing fees for federally insured mortgages last month, for example, he said: “If Congress refuses to act, I’ve said that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to act without them.”
Aides say many more such moves are coming. Not just a short-term shift in governing style and a re-election strategy, Mr. Obama’s increasingly assertive use of executive action could foreshadow pitched battles over the separation of powers in his second term, should he win and Republicans consolidate their power in Congress.
Many conservatives have denounced Mr. Obama’s new approach. But William G. Howell, a University of Chicago political science professor and author of “Power Without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action,” said Mr. Obama’s use of executive power to advance domestic policies that could not pass Congress was not new historically. Still, he said, because of Mr. Obama’s past as a critic of executive unilateralism, his transformation is remarkable.
“What is surprising is that he is coming around to responding to the incentives that are built into the institution of the presidency,” Mr. Howell said. “Even someone who has studied the Constitution and holds it in high regard — he, too, is going to exercise these unilateral powers because his long-term legacy and his standing in the polls crucially depend upon action.”
The bipartisan history of executive aggrandizement in recent decades complicates Republican criticism. In February, two conservative advocacy groups — Crossroads GPS and the American Action Network — sponsored a symposium to discuss what they called “the unprecedented expansion of executive power during the past three years.” It reached an awkward moment during a talk with a former attorney general, Edwin Meese III, and a former White House counsel, C. Boyden Gray.
“It’s kind of ironic you have Boyden and me here because when we were with the executive branch, we were probably the principal proponents of executive power under President Reagan and then President George H. W. Bush,” Mr. Meese said, quickly adding that the presidential prerogatives they sought to protect, unlike Mr. Obama’s, were valid.
SourceI don't like it. Make the case to the public and show some leadership. Don't create precedents that the next right wing administration can abuse. I don't want to see this type of executive power from either side of the aisle. I see a lot of this as the fault of the media and how people buy into the images they sell. Somehow we have cultivated this perception that literally every problem, domestic and abroad, is the President's fault. As a result, as one should expect, the presidency has extended its influence to try and manage... everything. We as a country need to correct our perception of politics and the politicians will conform automatically.
We should encourage more debate and allow Congress to take time to deliberate. NDAA had what... a whole 30 mins for consideration? We should not expect abuses of checks and balances and accept that the executive branch extend its influence. If the citizenry wants to become impatient and expect maximum expediency and efficiency... well, I suppose totalitarianism can do do that for them.
|
On April 23 2012 17:18 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 16:48 Velocirapture wrote:On April 23 2012 16:19 screamingpalm wrote:Obama's future strategy?
Each time, Mr. Obama has emphasized the fact that he is bypassing lawmakers. When he announced a cut in refinancing fees for federally insured mortgages last month, for example, he said: “If Congress refuses to act, I’ve said that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to act without them.”
Aides say many more such moves are coming. Not just a short-term shift in governing style and a re-election strategy, Mr. Obama’s increasingly assertive use of executive action could foreshadow pitched battles over the separation of powers in his second term, should he win and Republicans consolidate their power in Congress.
Many conservatives have denounced Mr. Obama’s new approach. But William G. Howell, a University of Chicago political science professor and author of “Power Without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action,” said Mr. Obama’s use of executive power to advance domestic policies that could not pass Congress was not new historically. Still, he said, because of Mr. Obama’s past as a critic of executive unilateralism, his transformation is remarkable.
“What is surprising is that he is coming around to responding to the incentives that are built into the institution of the presidency,” Mr. Howell said. “Even someone who has studied the Constitution and holds it in high regard — he, too, is going to exercise these unilateral powers because his long-term legacy and his standing in the polls crucially depend upon action.”
The bipartisan history of executive aggrandizement in recent decades complicates Republican criticism. In February, two conservative advocacy groups — Crossroads GPS and the American Action Network — sponsored a symposium to discuss what they called “the unprecedented expansion of executive power during the past three years.” It reached an awkward moment during a talk with a former attorney general, Edwin Meese III, and a former White House counsel, C. Boyden Gray.
“It’s kind of ironic you have Boyden and me here because when we were with the executive branch, we were probably the principal proponents of executive power under President Reagan and then President George H. W. Bush,” Mr. Meese said, quickly adding that the presidential prerogatives they sought to protect, unlike Mr. Obama’s, were valid.
SourceI don't like it. Make the case to the public and show some leadership. Don't create precedents that the next right wing administration can abuse. I don't want to see this type of executive power from either side of the aisle. I see a lot of this as the fault of the media and how people buy into the images they sell. Somehow we have cultivated this perception that literally every problem, domestic and abroad, is the President's fault. As a result, as one should expect, the presidency has extended its influence to try and manage... everything. We as a country need to correct our perception of politics and the politicians will conform automatically. We should encourage more debate and allow Congress to take time to deliberate. NDAA had what... a whole 30 mins for consideration? We should not expect abuses of checks and balances and accept that the executive branch extend its influence. If the citizenry wants to become impatient and expect maximum expediency and efficiency... well, I suppose totalitarianism can do do that for them.
The problem lies in the nature of the US goverment.
By seperating the president and congress you can get a situation like there is currently where there goals are divided.
The republicans have stopped everything that can from getting through. What they cannot vote down they filibuster into obsurity. what they cannot put away they tack stupid amendents on. Controversial things like the NDAA had veteran pensions attached to it so that shutting it down by Obama would become political suicide.
The American goverment is structured in such a way that if both parties control 1 piece of it they can shut eachother down and deny either from functioning. Add to that an unwillingness to work together for the great good of the country and chaos follows. If Obama wants to get anything done he HAS to work around congress.
There is a reason a lot of european contrys work different. If our "president" has no control of congress and fails to pass a bill new elections are held because without cooperation between both a country cannot function.
|
On April 23 2012 18:23 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 17:18 screamingpalm wrote:On April 23 2012 16:48 Velocirapture wrote:On April 23 2012 16:19 screamingpalm wrote:Obama's future strategy?
Each time, Mr. Obama has emphasized the fact that he is bypassing lawmakers. When he announced a cut in refinancing fees for federally insured mortgages last month, for example, he said: “If Congress refuses to act, I’ve said that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to act without them.”
Aides say many more such moves are coming. Not just a short-term shift in governing style and a re-election strategy, Mr. Obama’s increasingly assertive use of executive action could foreshadow pitched battles over the separation of powers in his second term, should he win and Republicans consolidate their power in Congress.
Many conservatives have denounced Mr. Obama’s new approach. But William G. Howell, a University of Chicago political science professor and author of “Power Without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action,” said Mr. Obama’s use of executive power to advance domestic policies that could not pass Congress was not new historically. Still, he said, because of Mr. Obama’s past as a critic of executive unilateralism, his transformation is remarkable.
“What is surprising is that he is coming around to responding to the incentives that are built into the institution of the presidency,” Mr. Howell said. “Even someone who has studied the Constitution and holds it in high regard — he, too, is going to exercise these unilateral powers because his long-term legacy and his standing in the polls crucially depend upon action.”
The bipartisan history of executive aggrandizement in recent decades complicates Republican criticism. In February, two conservative advocacy groups — Crossroads GPS and the American Action Network — sponsored a symposium to discuss what they called “the unprecedented expansion of executive power during the past three years.” It reached an awkward moment during a talk with a former attorney general, Edwin Meese III, and a former White House counsel, C. Boyden Gray.
“It’s kind of ironic you have Boyden and me here because when we were with the executive branch, we were probably the principal proponents of executive power under President Reagan and then President George H. W. Bush,” Mr. Meese said, quickly adding that the presidential prerogatives they sought to protect, unlike Mr. Obama’s, were valid.
SourceI don't like it. Make the case to the public and show some leadership. Don't create precedents that the next right wing administration can abuse. I don't want to see this type of executive power from either side of the aisle. I see a lot of this as the fault of the media and how people buy into the images they sell. Somehow we have cultivated this perception that literally every problem, domestic and abroad, is the President's fault. As a result, as one should expect, the presidency has extended its influence to try and manage... everything. We as a country need to correct our perception of politics and the politicians will conform automatically. We should encourage more debate and allow Congress to take time to deliberate. NDAA had what... a whole 30 mins for consideration? We should not expect abuses of checks and balances and accept that the executive branch extend its influence. If the citizenry wants to become impatient and expect maximum expediency and efficiency... well, I suppose totalitarianism can do do that for them. The problem lies in the nature of the US goverment. By seperating the president and congress you can get a situation like there is currently where there goals are divided. The republicans have stopped everything that can from getting through. What they cannot vote down they filibuster into obsurity. what they cannot put away they tack stupid amendents on. Controversial things like the NDAA had veteran pensions attached to it so that shutting it down by Obama would become political suicide. The American goverment is structured in such a way that if both parties control 1 piece of it they can shut eachother down and deny either from functioning. Add to that an unwillingness to work together for the great good of the country and chaos follows. If Obama wants to get anything done he HAS to work around congress. There is a reason a lot of european contrys work different. If our "president" has no control of congress and fails to pass a bill new elections are held because without cooperation between both a country cannot function.
Those Republicans were sent there by the American people though. You have to assume that voters are civically responsible and represent what they want. I'm sure the public knew this would happen when they sent them there. If they wanted Obama to have an easier time pushing his agenda through, they would have sent more Dems to Congress. This is just lazy leadership, and is pointless. Any short term gains will be erased with the next opposition party's administration. If instead, he had made the case to the public, there would be more valuable, lasting effects. Force those Republicans to vote and let the public decide if they should keep those seats. If they are seen as being obstructionists, they won't get re-elected. I can see nothing good in having an executive with so much overreaching power.
As far as tack on legislation- that should be done away with. McCain was the only one I am aware of that took a stand on that issue though.
|
On April 23 2012 17:18 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 16:48 Velocirapture wrote:On April 23 2012 16:19 screamingpalm wrote:Obama's future strategy?
Each time, Mr. Obama has emphasized the fact that he is bypassing lawmakers. When he announced a cut in refinancing fees for federally insured mortgages last month, for example, he said: “If Congress refuses to act, I’ve said that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to act without them.”
Aides say many more such moves are coming. Not just a short-term shift in governing style and a re-election strategy, Mr. Obama’s increasingly assertive use of executive action could foreshadow pitched battles over the separation of powers in his second term, should he win and Republicans consolidate their power in Congress.
Many conservatives have denounced Mr. Obama’s new approach. But William G. Howell, a University of Chicago political science professor and author of “Power Without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action,” said Mr. Obama’s use of executive power to advance domestic policies that could not pass Congress was not new historically. Still, he said, because of Mr. Obama’s past as a critic of executive unilateralism, his transformation is remarkable.
“What is surprising is that he is coming around to responding to the incentives that are built into the institution of the presidency,” Mr. Howell said. “Even someone who has studied the Constitution and holds it in high regard — he, too, is going to exercise these unilateral powers because his long-term legacy and his standing in the polls crucially depend upon action.”
The bipartisan history of executive aggrandizement in recent decades complicates Republican criticism. In February, two conservative advocacy groups — Crossroads GPS and the American Action Network — sponsored a symposium to discuss what they called “the unprecedented expansion of executive power during the past three years.” It reached an awkward moment during a talk with a former attorney general, Edwin Meese III, and a former White House counsel, C. Boyden Gray.
“It’s kind of ironic you have Boyden and me here because when we were with the executive branch, we were probably the principal proponents of executive power under President Reagan and then President George H. W. Bush,” Mr. Meese said, quickly adding that the presidential prerogatives they sought to protect, unlike Mr. Obama’s, were valid.
SourceI don't like it. Make the case to the public and show some leadership. Don't create precedents that the next right wing administration can abuse. I don't want to see this type of executive power from either side of the aisle. I see a lot of this as the fault of the media and how people buy into the images they sell. Somehow we have cultivated this perception that literally every problem, domestic and abroad, is the President's fault. As a result, as one should expect, the presidency has extended its influence to try and manage... everything. We as a country need to correct our perception of politics and the politicians will conform automatically. We should encourage more debate and allow Congress to take time to deliberate. NDAA had what... a whole 30 mins for consideration? We should not expect abuses of checks and balances and accept that the executive branch extend its influence. If the citizenry wants to become impatient and expect maximum expediency and efficiency... well, I suppose totalitarianism can do do that for them.
Well, Obama did say 5 days of public debate before he signed bills during his 08 campaign.
However, I want to share this with you..
President Obama will issue an executive order Monday that will allow U.S. officials for the first time to impose sanctions against foreign nationals found to have used new technologies, from cellphone tracking to Internet monitoring, to help carry out grave human rights abuses. Social media and cellphone technology have been widely credited with helping democracy advocates organize against autocratic governments and better expose rights violations, most notably over the past year and a half in the Middle East and North Africa. But authoritarian governments, particularly in Sy Sourceria and Iran, have shown that their security services can also harness technology to help crack down on dissent — by conducting surveillance, blocking access to the Internet or tracking the movements of opposition figures.
Jaw dropping isn't it! AKA Don't do what we do, and DEFINATELY don't do what we do and arrest our intelligence services on the ground in your country using these techniques.
|
On April 23 2012 18:54 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 18:23 Gorsameth wrote:On April 23 2012 17:18 screamingpalm wrote:On April 23 2012 16:48 Velocirapture wrote:On April 23 2012 16:19 screamingpalm wrote:Obama's future strategy?
Each time, Mr. Obama has emphasized the fact that he is bypassing lawmakers. When he announced a cut in refinancing fees for federally insured mortgages last month, for example, he said: “If Congress refuses to act, I’ve said that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to act without them.”
Aides say many more such moves are coming. Not just a short-term shift in governing style and a re-election strategy, Mr. Obama’s increasingly assertive use of executive action could foreshadow pitched battles over the separation of powers in his second term, should he win and Republicans consolidate their power in Congress.
Many conservatives have denounced Mr. Obama’s new approach. But William G. Howell, a University of Chicago political science professor and author of “Power Without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action,” said Mr. Obama’s use of executive power to advance domestic policies that could not pass Congress was not new historically. Still, he said, because of Mr. Obama’s past as a critic of executive unilateralism, his transformation is remarkable.
“What is surprising is that he is coming around to responding to the incentives that are built into the institution of the presidency,” Mr. Howell said. “Even someone who has studied the Constitution and holds it in high regard — he, too, is going to exercise these unilateral powers because his long-term legacy and his standing in the polls crucially depend upon action.”
The bipartisan history of executive aggrandizement in recent decades complicates Republican criticism. In February, two conservative advocacy groups — Crossroads GPS and the American Action Network — sponsored a symposium to discuss what they called “the unprecedented expansion of executive power during the past three years.” It reached an awkward moment during a talk with a former attorney general, Edwin Meese III, and a former White House counsel, C. Boyden Gray.
“It’s kind of ironic you have Boyden and me here because when we were with the executive branch, we were probably the principal proponents of executive power under President Reagan and then President George H. W. Bush,” Mr. Meese said, quickly adding that the presidential prerogatives they sought to protect, unlike Mr. Obama’s, were valid.
SourceI don't like it. Make the case to the public and show some leadership. Don't create precedents that the next right wing administration can abuse. I don't want to see this type of executive power from either side of the aisle. I see a lot of this as the fault of the media and how people buy into the images they sell. Somehow we have cultivated this perception that literally every problem, domestic and abroad, is the President's fault. As a result, as one should expect, the presidency has extended its influence to try and manage... everything. We as a country need to correct our perception of politics and the politicians will conform automatically. We should encourage more debate and allow Congress to take time to deliberate. NDAA had what... a whole 30 mins for consideration? We should not expect abuses of checks and balances and accept that the executive branch extend its influence. If the citizenry wants to become impatient and expect maximum expediency and efficiency... well, I suppose totalitarianism can do do that for them. The problem lies in the nature of the US goverment. By seperating the president and congress you can get a situation like there is currently where there goals are divided. The republicans have stopped everything that can from getting through. What they cannot vote down they filibuster into obsurity. what they cannot put away they tack stupid amendents on. Controversial things like the NDAA had veteran pensions attached to it so that shutting it down by Obama would become political suicide. The American goverment is structured in such a way that if both parties control 1 piece of it they can shut eachother down and deny either from functioning. Add to that an unwillingness to work together for the great good of the country and chaos follows. If Obama wants to get anything done he HAS to work around congress. There is a reason a lot of european contrys work different. If our "president" has no control of congress and fails to pass a bill new elections are held because without cooperation between both a country cannot function. Those Republicans were sent there by the American people though. You have to assume that voters are civically responsible and represent what they want. I'm sure the public knew this would happen when they sent them there. If they wanted Obama to have an easier time pushing his agenda through, they would have sent more Dems to Congress.
To add some creedence to this argument, I'd like to point out that the 2010 election was the largest gain of House congressional seats for any party since 1938. Republicans gained 64 seats in the chamber of 435, meaning almost 15% of democrats were replaced with Republicans. Given the American system of direct representation, that large of a swing is almost unheard of; especially in a non-presidential election year. Obviously the American public was not happy with the democrat's agenda. It will be interesting to see how much of that is carried over into 2012.
|
On April 23 2012 22:22 BioNova wrote:
Jaw dropping isn't it! AKA Don't do what we do, and DEFINATELY don't do what we do and arrest our intelligence services on the ground in your country using these techniques.
State actions aren't some sort of appeal to greater morality, they're to serve a purpose.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 23 2012 22:59 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 18:54 screamingpalm wrote:On April 23 2012 18:23 Gorsameth wrote:On April 23 2012 17:18 screamingpalm wrote:On April 23 2012 16:48 Velocirapture wrote:On April 23 2012 16:19 screamingpalm wrote:Obama's future strategy?
Each time, Mr. Obama has emphasized the fact that he is bypassing lawmakers. When he announced a cut in refinancing fees for federally insured mortgages last month, for example, he said: “If Congress refuses to act, I’ve said that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to act without them.”
Aides say many more such moves are coming. Not just a short-term shift in governing style and a re-election strategy, Mr. Obama’s increasingly assertive use of executive action could foreshadow pitched battles over the separation of powers in his second term, should he win and Republicans consolidate their power in Congress.
Many conservatives have denounced Mr. Obama’s new approach. But William G. Howell, a University of Chicago political science professor and author of “Power Without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action,” said Mr. Obama’s use of executive power to advance domestic policies that could not pass Congress was not new historically. Still, he said, because of Mr. Obama’s past as a critic of executive unilateralism, his transformation is remarkable.
“What is surprising is that he is coming around to responding to the incentives that are built into the institution of the presidency,” Mr. Howell said. “Even someone who has studied the Constitution and holds it in high regard — he, too, is going to exercise these unilateral powers because his long-term legacy and his standing in the polls crucially depend upon action.”
The bipartisan history of executive aggrandizement in recent decades complicates Republican criticism. In February, two conservative advocacy groups — Crossroads GPS and the American Action Network — sponsored a symposium to discuss what they called “the unprecedented expansion of executive power during the past three years.” It reached an awkward moment during a talk with a former attorney general, Edwin Meese III, and a former White House counsel, C. Boyden Gray.
“It’s kind of ironic you have Boyden and me here because when we were with the executive branch, we were probably the principal proponents of executive power under President Reagan and then President George H. W. Bush,” Mr. Meese said, quickly adding that the presidential prerogatives they sought to protect, unlike Mr. Obama’s, were valid.
SourceI don't like it. Make the case to the public and show some leadership. Don't create precedents that the next right wing administration can abuse. I don't want to see this type of executive power from either side of the aisle. I see a lot of this as the fault of the media and how people buy into the images they sell. Somehow we have cultivated this perception that literally every problem, domestic and abroad, is the President's fault. As a result, as one should expect, the presidency has extended its influence to try and manage... everything. We as a country need to correct our perception of politics and the politicians will conform automatically. We should encourage more debate and allow Congress to take time to deliberate. NDAA had what... a whole 30 mins for consideration? We should not expect abuses of checks and balances and accept that the executive branch extend its influence. If the citizenry wants to become impatient and expect maximum expediency and efficiency... well, I suppose totalitarianism can do do that for them. The problem lies in the nature of the US goverment. By seperating the president and congress you can get a situation like there is currently where there goals are divided. The republicans have stopped everything that can from getting through. What they cannot vote down they filibuster into obsurity. what they cannot put away they tack stupid amendents on. Controversial things like the NDAA had veteran pensions attached to it so that shutting it down by Obama would become political suicide. The American goverment is structured in such a way that if both parties control 1 piece of it they can shut eachother down and deny either from functioning. Add to that an unwillingness to work together for the great good of the country and chaos follows. If Obama wants to get anything done he HAS to work around congress. There is a reason a lot of european contrys work different. If our "president" has no control of congress and fails to pass a bill new elections are held because without cooperation between both a country cannot function. Those Republicans were sent there by the American people though. You have to assume that voters are civically responsible and represent what they want. I'm sure the public knew this would happen when they sent them there. If they wanted Obama to have an easier time pushing his agenda through, they would have sent more Dems to Congress. To add some creedence to this argument, I'd like to point out that the 2010 election was the largest gain of House congressional seats for any party since 1938. Republicans gained 64 seats in the chamber of 435, meaning almost 15% of democrats were replaced with Republicans. Given the American system of direct representation, that large of a swing is almost unheard of; especially in a non-presidential election year. Obviously the American public was not happy with the democrat's agenda. It will be interesting to see how much of that is carried over into 2012.
They were unhappy with the state of the economy, not necessarily unhappy with the agenda. The economy is in a completely different place right now, and we're going to see a 1984 Reagan type victory for Obama.
I'd also like to point out that the majority of executive privilege that Obama's working under was taken by Bush, and one of his first acts in office was to eliminate some executive orders (thus reducing his own power.) Executive privilege is just not something that'll ever be eliminated. The last president to turn down a significant amount of power was George Washington.
|
Romney will win. You heard it here first.
|
On April 23 2012 23:35 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 22:59 TheToast wrote:On April 23 2012 18:54 screamingpalm wrote:On April 23 2012 18:23 Gorsameth wrote:On April 23 2012 17:18 screamingpalm wrote:On April 23 2012 16:48 Velocirapture wrote:On April 23 2012 16:19 screamingpalm wrote:Obama's future strategy?
Each time, Mr. Obama has emphasized the fact that he is bypassing lawmakers. When he announced a cut in refinancing fees for federally insured mortgages last month, for example, he said: “If Congress refuses to act, I’ve said that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to act without them.”
Aides say many more such moves are coming. Not just a short-term shift in governing style and a re-election strategy, Mr. Obama’s increasingly assertive use of executive action could foreshadow pitched battles over the separation of powers in his second term, should he win and Republicans consolidate their power in Congress.
Many conservatives have denounced Mr. Obama’s new approach. But William G. Howell, a University of Chicago political science professor and author of “Power Without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action,” said Mr. Obama’s use of executive power to advance domestic policies that could not pass Congress was not new historically. Still, he said, because of Mr. Obama’s past as a critic of executive unilateralism, his transformation is remarkable.
“What is surprising is that he is coming around to responding to the incentives that are built into the institution of the presidency,” Mr. Howell said. “Even someone who has studied the Constitution and holds it in high regard — he, too, is going to exercise these unilateral powers because his long-term legacy and his standing in the polls crucially depend upon action.”
The bipartisan history of executive aggrandizement in recent decades complicates Republican criticism. In February, two conservative advocacy groups — Crossroads GPS and the American Action Network — sponsored a symposium to discuss what they called “the unprecedented expansion of executive power during the past three years.” It reached an awkward moment during a talk with a former attorney general, Edwin Meese III, and a former White House counsel, C. Boyden Gray.
“It’s kind of ironic you have Boyden and me here because when we were with the executive branch, we were probably the principal proponents of executive power under President Reagan and then President George H. W. Bush,” Mr. Meese said, quickly adding that the presidential prerogatives they sought to protect, unlike Mr. Obama’s, were valid.
SourceI don't like it. Make the case to the public and show some leadership. Don't create precedents that the next right wing administration can abuse. I don't want to see this type of executive power from either side of the aisle. I see a lot of this as the fault of the media and how people buy into the images they sell. Somehow we have cultivated this perception that literally every problem, domestic and abroad, is the President's fault. As a result, as one should expect, the presidency has extended its influence to try and manage... everything. We as a country need to correct our perception of politics and the politicians will conform automatically. We should encourage more debate and allow Congress to take time to deliberate. NDAA had what... a whole 30 mins for consideration? We should not expect abuses of checks and balances and accept that the executive branch extend its influence. If the citizenry wants to become impatient and expect maximum expediency and efficiency... well, I suppose totalitarianism can do do that for them. The problem lies in the nature of the US goverment. By seperating the president and congress you can get a situation like there is currently where there goals are divided. The republicans have stopped everything that can from getting through. What they cannot vote down they filibuster into obsurity. what they cannot put away they tack stupid amendents on. Controversial things like the NDAA had veteran pensions attached to it so that shutting it down by Obama would become political suicide. The American goverment is structured in such a way that if both parties control 1 piece of it they can shut eachother down and deny either from functioning. Add to that an unwillingness to work together for the great good of the country and chaos follows. If Obama wants to get anything done he HAS to work around congress. There is a reason a lot of european contrys work different. If our "president" has no control of congress and fails to pass a bill new elections are held because without cooperation between both a country cannot function. Those Republicans were sent there by the American people though. You have to assume that voters are civically responsible and represent what they want. I'm sure the public knew this would happen when they sent them there. If they wanted Obama to have an easier time pushing his agenda through, they would have sent more Dems to Congress. To add some creedence to this argument, I'd like to point out that the 2010 election was the largest gain of House congressional seats for any party since 1938. Republicans gained 64 seats in the chamber of 435, meaning almost 15% of democrats were replaced with Republicans. Given the American system of direct representation, that large of a swing is almost unheard of; especially in a non-presidential election year. Obviously the American public was not happy with the democrat's agenda. It will be interesting to see how much of that is carried over into 2012. They were unhappy with the state of the economy, not necessarily unhappy with the agenda. The economy is in a completely different place right now, and we're going to see a 1984 Reagan type victory for Obama. I'd also like to point out that the majority of executive privilege that Obama's working under was taken by Bush, and one of his first acts in office was to eliminate some executive orders (thus reducing his own power.) Executive privilege is just not something that'll ever be eliminated. The last president to turn down a significant amount of power was George Washington.
Yes and no. While the economy was listed as the most important issue by voters in 2010, the healthcare issue was a very close second, with 49% of likely voters listing it as "extremely important" in a poll done by Gallup, and by 47% percent of independents. source
Further, I would argue that if voters are concerned about the economy and as a result vote out the democrat party in the biggest change of seats in the US House since 1938, obviously there was something about their agenda concerning the economy and jobs that voters rejected. It should be noted that in that same Gallup poll, the Federal Budget deficit was listed "extremely important" by 52% of independent voters. It's impossible to tell for sure without the raw data, but I would venture a guess that there is a strong overlap in voters concerned with the economy and those concerned with healthcare and deficit spending.
If the 2010 election wasn't a rejection of the Democrat agenda by independent and swing voters, I'd be interested to hear your thearies as to why we saw a democrat majority voted out in an historic number.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
