Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Obama Administration

17980828485100

Posts

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Seruko wrote: »
    Tenek wrote: »
    Seruko wrote: »
    The filibuster and the 60 person senate majority rules had back doors. Back doors that were ultimately used anyway.

    The "back door" of reconciliation only worked because the Senate had actually passed a bill with 60 votes. Also keep in mind that the Senate had 48 days in summer '09 and 117 in the fall and winter where they actually had 60, which left them with the difficult task of persuading every last conservative Senator not to kill it. And they did it! That should count as a victory.

    This is counter factual. Please feel free to look up reconciliation.

    Which requires the bill to be budget based, and more importantly to not increase the deficit (which can be jiggered by having time limits/sunsets, which is how the Bush tax cuts happened). Good luck passing Medicare for all and claiming it's deficit neutral without a massive tax hike. Now, I tend to think it would be less of a deficit issue than the math would suggest for a variety of productivity based reasons, buuuuuut it wouldn't look that way.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • Captain MarcusCaptain Marcus Right here in River CityRegistered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Seruko wrote: »
    This is a laundry list of failure.
    From privatizing space flight,

    A Moon Base sounds (and is) cool but sending astronauts up is very expensive. Unmanned flights provide far more science bang for your buck.
    to creating a consumer protection board and falling to appoint a director for years,

    He's tried to appoint a director (the redoubtable Elizabeth Warren) but the appointment's dependent on Republicans, and they've blocked anything to do with that agency.
    to creating more laws for the SEC to not enforce

    Not really his issue to deal with. And doesn't Congress do the whole "creating laws" bit?
    Well maybe not the last bit, Obama has done remarkably well on the GLBT front. Good for freaking him, meanwhile African American unemployment is flirting with 17%, but since 1/3 African American men go to prison at some point, they're probably just in jail. Well played Obama.

    THANKS OBAMA

    I bet the mentally disabled have a higher unemployment rate, but you don't see me shedding any tears, eh?
    The high unemployment rates of minorities is a combination of lasting institutional racism, substandard education, and single parents entrenched in poverty. That stuff's been around since Obama, and it's going to be around after he's gone.

    Also education and law enforcement are a states thing, so you're even more wrong! Hooray!

    why they are a democrat echo chamber.

    I'm a fascist, actually. I support Obama because the country would go to hell in a handbasket fast if any of the lunatics from the right were chosen. Plus, Obama's a fantastic speaker and is in favor of many ideas that I support, such as not wasting our resources James-Watt-style and dissing China. Screw you, China.

    Captain Marcus on
    Remember the Maine, Plymouth Rock, and the Golden Rule!
  • SerukoSeruko Ferocious Kitten of The Farthest NorthRegistered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Seruko wrote: »
    This is a laundry list of failure.
    From privatizing space flight,

    A Moon Base sounds (and is) cool but sending astronauts up is very expensive. Unmanned flights provide far more science bang for your buck.
    to creating a consumer protection board and falling to appoint a director for years,

    He's tried to appoint a director (the redoubtable Elizabeth Warren) but the appointment's dependent on Republicans, and they've blocked anything to do with that agency.
    to creating more laws for the SEC to not enforce

    Not really his issue to deal with. And doesn't Congress do the whole "creating laws" bit?
    Well maybe not the last bit, Obama has done remarkably well on the GLBT front. Good for freaking him, meanwhile African American unemployment is flirting with 17%, but since 1/3 African American men go to prison at some point, they're probably just in jail. Well played Obama.

    THANKS OBAMA

    I bet the mentally disabled have a higher unemployment rate, but you don't see me shedding any tears, eh?
    The high unemployment rates of minorities is a combination of lasting institutional racism, substandard education, and single parents entrenched in poverty. That stuff's been around since Obama, and it's going to be around after he's gone.

    Also education and law enforcement are a states thing, so you're even more wrong! Hooray!

    why they are a democrat echo chamber.

    I'm a fascist, actually. I support Obama because the country would go to hell in a handbasket fast if any of the lunatics from the right were chosen. Plus, Obama's a fantastic speaker and is in favor of many ideas that I support, such as not wasting our resources James-Watt-style and dissing China. Screw you, China.

    I am responding to the random quotes presented by the link above "http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/" which you omit, kinda important.
    As to unnamed flights providing more science bang for you buck... I must respectfully disagree. I find the secondary and terityry benifits of maned space flight incredibly useful. Like the computer I'm using to write this.
    Obama absolutely did not try. He named his appointment threw up his hands in the air and then said oh noez I can do nothing.
    Then When Elizabeth Warren was safely out of the picture, and the political capital for meaningful financial reform was long dead, he made a recess appointment, 2 years later.
    The SEC reports to the president. It was created by Roosevelt.
    Really African Americans are comparable to the mentally disabled how? I'm struggling here to ignore the blatant racism in the statement.

    Law Enforcement is the Direct Purview of the President of the US. Perhaps you've heard of the Department of Justice?
    I have no idea what you're talking about with eduction as I do not mention it. But I must agree with you, if I brought that up I would be wrong. Good thing I didn't.

    Seruko on
    "How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
    "You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
    "In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
    "In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
    I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Seruko wrote: »
    Seruko wrote: »
    This is a laundry list of failure.
    From privatizing space flight,

    A Moon Base sounds (and is) cool but sending astronauts up is very expensive. Unmanned flights provide far more science bang for your buck.
    to creating a consumer protection board and falling to appoint a director for years,

    He's tried to appoint a director (the redoubtable Elizabeth Warren) but the appointment's dependent on Republicans, and they've blocked anything to do with that agency.
    to creating more laws for the SEC to not enforce

    Not really his issue to deal with. And doesn't Congress do the whole "creating laws" bit?
    Well maybe not the last bit, Obama has done remarkably well on the GLBT front. Good for freaking him, meanwhile African American unemployment is flirting with 17%, but since 1/3 African American men go to prison at some point, they're probably just in jail. Well played Obama.

    THANKS OBAMA

    I bet the mentally disabled have a higher unemployment rate, but you don't see me shedding any tears, eh?
    The high unemployment rates of minorities is a combination of lasting institutional racism, substandard education, and single parents entrenched in poverty. That stuff's been around since Obama, and it's going to be around after he's gone.

    Also education and law enforcement are a states thing, so you're even more wrong! Hooray!

    why they are a democrat echo chamber.

    I'm a fascist, actually. I support Obama because the country would go to hell in a handbasket fast if any of the lunatics from the right were chosen. Plus, Obama's a fantastic speaker and is in favor of many ideas that I support, such as not wasting our resources James-Watt-style and dissing China. Screw you, China.

    I am responding to the random quotes presented by the link above "http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/" which you omit, kinda important.
    As to unnamed flights providing more science bang for you buck... I must respectfully disagree.
    Obama absolutely did not try. He named his appointment threw up his hands in the air and then said oh noez I can do nothing.
    Then When Elizabeth Warren was safely out of the picture, and the political capital for meaningful financial reform was long dead, he made a recess appointment, 2 years later.
    The SEC reports to the president. It was created by Roosevelt.
    Really African Americans are comparable to the mentally disabled how? I'm struggling here to ignore the blatant racism in the statement.

    Law Enforcement is the Direct Purview of the President of the US. Perhaps you've heard of the Department of Justice?
    I have no idea what you're talking about with eduction as I do not mention it. But I must agree with you, if I brought that up I would be wrong. Good thing I didn't.

    I think it's a fair criticism to point out that the Obama Administration kind of floundered for the first two years. They labored under the assumption that the Republicans would move across aisles to meet them halfway pretty much until the debt ceiling. The supermajority of blue dogs (who were then replaced by the Tea Party) wasn't the big stick of politics that we remember it as.

    I think his point about African Americans and the disabled is that unemployment is in the shitter for everyone and that adversely effects minorities of all types. I seriously doubt that he was saying Black=Disabled and I think it's a bit unfair of you to assume so.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    You of course forget to mention that Cordray was approved of by Warren and has not exactly been bank friendly in his legal career. And Warren gets to become a Senator. Win-win.

    Yes, the SEC is part of the executive branch, but its mission and authority was created by Congress, and for meaningful change either of those requires Congressional approval.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • SerukoSeruko Ferocious Kitten of The Farthest NorthRegistered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Seruko wrote: »
    Tenek wrote: »
    Seruko wrote: »
    The filibuster and the 60 person senate majority rules had back doors. Back doors that were ultimately used anyway.

    The "back door" of reconciliation only worked because the Senate had actually passed a bill with 60 votes. Also keep in mind that the Senate had 48 days in summer '09 and 117 in the fall and winter where they actually had 60, which left them with the difficult task of persuading every last conservative Senator not to kill it. And they did it! That should count as a victory.

    This is counter factual. Please feel free to look up reconciliation.

    Which requires the bill to be budget based, and more importantly to not increase the deficit (which can be jiggered by having time limits/sunsets, which is how the Bush tax cuts happened). Good luck passing Medicare for all and claiming it's deficit neutral without a massive tax hike. Now, I tend to think it would be less of a deficit issue than the math would suggest for a variety of productivity based reasons, buuuuuut it wouldn't look that way.

    A non-judgmental reasonable disagreement about the facts! I applaud you. I think there are a number of ways in which you could make an argument for budgetary neutrality. At the very least, the very absolute least, a proposal could have been made. Nothing of the sort happend. It was "Off the Table," if Obama was arguing in good faith, and he might very well have been I don't claim to be a mind reader, then he was compromising before he offered a position from which to further comprise a position that seems almost criminally naive given the circumstances and more importantly his position.

    Seruko on
    "How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
    "You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
    "In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
    "In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
    I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    You also would have still needed 50 votes for single payer.

    Lieberman, Pryor, Landrieu, Warner, Webb, Begich, Nelson, Nelson, Baucus, Tester, and Lincoln would have voted no. What's the point?

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • SerukoSeruko Ferocious Kitten of The Farthest NorthRegistered User regular
    edited February 2012
    You of course forget to mention that Cordray was approved of by Warren and has not exactly been bank friendly in his legal career. And Warren gets to become a Senator. Win-win.

    Yes, the SEC is part of the executive branch, but its mission and authority was created by Congress, and for meaningful change either of those requires Congressional approval.

    You of course forget to mention the 2 years bit. and that a recess apoint could have been made literally half a dozen times before those two years.
    And that now the consumer protection board, instead of talking about looking at financial institutions creating toxic asset for pension funds to buy, is talking about looking at pay day lenders. So the US economy could still explode at any time, good thing that's not covered.

    The President of the US appoints the Comitee members which head the SEC and selects the chair person. Congress has nothing to do with it.

    Seruko on
    "How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
    "You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
    "In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
    "In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
    I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    Seruko wrote: »
    The President of the US appoints the Comitee members which head the SEC and selects the chair person. Congress has nothing to do with it.
    Wrong, but nice try. SEC members, like many Presidential appointments, have to pass the Senate.

  • SerukoSeruko Ferocious Kitten of The Farthest NorthRegistered User regular
    edited February 2012

    I think it's a fair criticism to point out that the Obama Administration kind of floundered for the first two years. They labored under the assumption that the Republicans would move across aisles to meet them halfway pretty much until the debt ceiling. The supermajority of blue dogs (who were then replaced by the Tea Party) wasn't the big stick of politics that we remember it as.

    I think his point about African Americans and the disabled is that unemployment is in the shitter for everyone and that adversely effects minorities of all types. I seriously doubt that he was saying Black=Disabled and I think it's a bit unfair of you to assume so.

    I hear your complaint. I still don't have a rational response to that quote. I admit, I'm cough up in my perception of racism there.
    ---

    As to what Obama's inability to provide meaningful economic reform and the cost for that

    redacted:could not find reference.

    It doesn't matter why we're here.
    What matters is Obama had the power to change things for the better and he didnt.
    I'm not suggesting we elect Santorum to fix things, but we should hold Obama accountable.
    Seruko wrote: »
    The President of the US appoints the Comitee members which head the SEC and selects the chair person. Congress has nothing to do with it.
    Wrong, but nice try. SEC members, like many Presidential appointments, have to pass the Senate.
    Does it take work to be that wrong? Recess appointments do you speak them?

    Seruko on
    "How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
    "You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
    "In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
    "In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
    I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
  • redxredx East Bumblefuck, PARegistered User regular
    Seruko wrote: »
    I'm not suggesting we elect Santorum to fix things, but we should hold Obama accountable.

    How? He gets re-elected or not, and after that pretty much all anyone can do is call him names.

    All I've got is a snuggle hammer.
  • Captain MarcusCaptain Marcus Right here in River CityRegistered User regular
    Seruko wrote: »
    I am responding to the random quotes presented by the link above "http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/" which you omit, kinda important.
    As to unnamed flights providing more science bang for you buck... I must respectfully disagree. I find the secondary and terityry benifits of maned space flight incredibly useful. Like the computer I'm using to write this.

    Manned mission to Mars, $300 billion. Unmanned mission, $10 billion.
    History of computers on wikipedia. The words "space program" don't really jump out at me here. Did the space program use computers? Sure. The military also used computers, and were just as responsible for their development. Hell, the military invented what you are on right now, i.e. the Internet.

    Obama absolutely did not try. He named his appointment threw up his hands in the air and then said oh noez I can do nothing.
    Then When Elizabeth Warren was safely out of the picture, and the political capital for meaningful financial reform was long dead, he made a recess appointment, 2 years later.

    You have a very strange view of time. Here's an article from last May. It describes how Republicans were fighting tooth and nail against Elizabeth Warren's appointment, to the extent of not going into recess to prevent her being chosen as a recess appointment. Again, not his fault the Republicans were being idiots.
    The SEC reports to the president. It was created by Roosevelt.

    He's trying to give them more money. Unlikely that the Republicans will allow it.
    Really African Americans are comparable to the mentally disabled how? I'm struggling here to ignore the blatant racism in the statement.

    You pulled a talking point out of left field and tried to pin the blame on Obama. According to your logic, he could also be culpable for high unemployment rates among sufferers of Down's.

    He's not responsible for either unemployment rate and to claim otherwise is ridiculous. There are plentiful reasons for high unemployment rates among African Americans, and none of them start with "Barack".
    Law Enforcement is the Direct Purview of the President of the US. Perhaps you've heard of the Department of Justice?

    No, it's not his purview at all. Perhaps you've heard of the police? State troopers? They usually do most of the arresting, and send most of the African Americans men to jail. I doubt the FBI is responsible for putting petty criminals in the clink.
    I have no idea what you're talking about with education as I do not mention it. But I must agree with you, if I brought that up I would be wrong. Good thing I didn't.

    Substandard education is one of the reasons why the minority unemployment rate is so high, especially in inner cities. Again, "substandard education" does not equal "Barack Obama" in "Why does African-American unemployment= 17% ?".

    It's not his fault, at all. I don't even know why you brought up the unemployment rate of African-Americans in the first place.

    Remember the Maine, Plymouth Rock, and the Golden Rule!
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Seruko wrote: »

    I think it's a fair criticism to point out that the Obama Administration kind of floundered for the first two years. They labored under the assumption that the Republicans would move across aisles to meet them halfway pretty much until the debt ceiling. The supermajority of blue dogs (who were then replaced by the Tea Party) wasn't the big stick of politics that we remember it as.

    I think his point about African Americans and the disabled is that unemployment is in the shitter for everyone and that adversely effects minorities of all types. I seriously doubt that he was saying Black=Disabled and I think it's a bit unfair of you to assume so.

    I hear your complaint. I still don't have a rational response to that quote. I admit, I'm cough up in my perception of racism there.
    ---

    As to what Obama's inability to provide meaningful economic reform and the cost for that

    bad link working on it

    The great depressions was absolutely worse, but shorter than the current malaise.
    It doesn't matter why we're here.
    What matters is Obama had the power to change things for the better and he didnt.
    I'm not suggesting we elect Santorum to fix things, but we should hold Obama accountable.
    Seruko wrote: »
    The President of the US appoints the Comitee members which head the SEC and selects the chair person. Congress has nothing to do with it.
    Wrong, but nice try. SEC members, like many Presidential appointments, have to pass the Senate.
    Does it take work to be that wrong? Recess appointments do you speak them?

    The Great Depression was a good ten-twelve years long and its end was hastened by the war.

    The recession is over, has been for what, 22 months now? It's a slow, jobless recovery of course, but hardly barely better than the GD. Do I think we need a Newer Deal type solution? You betcha, but Obama also offered a plan that would've made some good moves in that direction but was DOA thanks to Congress.

    It's also important to realize that this is a problem that is about thirty/forty years in the making, hardly one that is going to be solved in one term.

    And again, I think Obama sputtered along for the first two years or so of his turn. But he seems to have learned from those mistakes and struck forward fairly well. But you've certainly the right to hold his feet to the fire over it.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Seruko wrote:
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    a5ehren wrote: »
    Seruko wrote: »
    Seruko, you've been both far goosier and far more incoherent in both this and other threads.

    Non-reforming insurance reform. The only reform possible for a generation which fails to address the problems in health care out comes, or health care prices is a bad deal.
    The excuses for this is "but GOP obstructionism," the bad deal mentioned above past with zero GOP support and 100% GOP opposition. So why no meaningful refrom?
    Second excuse "but Democratic obstructionism," if the titular head of a political party cannot rally his own troops to pass his own legislation, then he is a bad leader.
    If the titular head of a political party does not want to pass legislation that he campaigned for, and wants instead to pass legislation that he campaigned against, then he is acting in bad faith. The office of the president is one in which we expect a good leader acting in good faith.

    Please forgive me If I've been unclear about that argument.

    How about this: you craft a reality where you can get blue-dog Democrats in the Senate from Arkansas and Nebraska to get on board with any kind of public healthcare reform (keep in mind that Blanche Lincoln went on to lose her re-election campaign by 21 points despite voting against ACA) and I'll get you one where we have a better healthcare reform.

    Dismissing "Democratic obstructionism" and expecting Obama to rule over the Democratic party with an iron fist is simply ignoring reality.

    Don't forget about Lieberman.

    This is Pure Apologia and without substance. "That Dog won't Hunt."
    as
    1. It is one of the core roles of the president of the US to act as the political head of their own political party. If the president cannot get his own people in line then they have failed in their role as a leader. For example. Dog walkers walk dogs. When dogs don't want to go some place well that is what the freaking leash is for.
    2. Even ignoring the above, there is the well used parliamentary procedure to circumvent the 60 person requirement, a procedure that was ultimately used anyway.

    The least often used, and best in my opinion, argument against Obama the President is that he's just not very good at getting his own legislation past. He's not very good at the executive part of his job. FFS the Republicans impeached Clinton and Clinton still whipped them like dogs to get the legislation that he wanted past, past. If Obama is unable, unwilling or playing some kind of game that prevents him from doing the same to his own people, he's not fit for the job.

    Edit: The same goes for every other major policy fight from the stimulus to the debt ceiling limit. Either Obama is an awful executive (politically naive and impotent) or his real agenda is not to do what's necessary to fix things. Either way.

    No, the President is not supposed to be the head of his party, and frankly, that's a quite dangerous argument to make.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Seruko wrote: »

    I think it's a fair criticism to point out that the Obama Administration kind of floundered for the first two years. They labored under the assumption that the Republicans would move across aisles to meet them halfway pretty much until the debt ceiling. The supermajority of blue dogs (who were then replaced by the Tea Party) wasn't the big stick of politics that we remember it as.

    I think his point about African Americans and the disabled is that unemployment is in the shitter for everyone and that adversely effects minorities of all types. I seriously doubt that he was saying Black=Disabled and I think it's a bit unfair of you to assume so.

    I hear your complaint. I still don't have a rational response to that quote. I admit, I'm cough up in my perception of racism there.
    ---

    As to what Obama's inability to provide meaningful economic reform and the cost for that

    redacted:could not find reference.

    It doesn't matter why we're here.
    What matters is Obama had the power to change things for the better and he didnt.
    I'm not suggesting we elect Santorum to fix things, but we should hold Obama accountable.
    Seruko wrote: »
    The President of the US appoints the Comitee members which head the SEC and selects the chair person. Congress has nothing to do with it.
    Wrong, but nice try. SEC members, like many Presidential appointments, have to pass the Senate.
    Does it take work to be that wrong? Recess appointments do you speak them?

    On recess appointments, the Senate has been playing games. We haven't technically had a recess yet.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • SerukoSeruko Ferocious Kitten of The Farthest NorthRegistered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Seruko wrote: »
    I am responding to the random quotes presented by the link above "http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/" which you omit, kinda important.
    As to unnamed flights providing more science bang for you buck... I must respectfully disagree. I find the secondary and terityry benifits of maned space flight incredibly useful. Like the computer I'm using to write this.

    Manned mission to Mars, $300 billion. Unmanned mission, $10 billion.
    History of computers on wikipedia. The words "space program" don't really jump out at me here. Did the space program use computers? Sure. The military also used computers, and were just as responsible for their development. Hell, the military invented what you are on right now, i.e. the Internet.

    Obama absolutely did not try. He named his appointment threw up his hands in the air and then said oh noez I can do nothing.
    Then When Elizabeth Warren was safely out of the picture, and the political capital for meaningful financial reform was long dead, he made a recess appointment, 2 years later.

    You have a very strange view of time. Here's an article from last May. It describes how Republicans were fighting tooth and nail against Elizabeth Warren's appointment, to the extent of not going into recess to prevent her being chosen as a recess appointment. Again, not his fault the Republicans were being idiots.
    The SEC reports to the president. It was created by Roosevelt.

    He's trying to give them more money. Unlikely that the Republicans will allow it.
    Really African Americans are comparable to the mentally disabled how? I'm struggling here to ignore the blatant racism in the statement.

    You pulled a talking point out of left field and tried to pin the blame on Obama. According to your logic, he could also be culpable for high unemployment rates among sufferers of Down's.

    He's not responsible for either unemployment rate and to claim otherwise is ridiculous. There are plentiful reasons for high unemployment rates among African Americans, and none of them start with "Barack".
    Law Enforcement is the Direct Purview of the President of the US. Perhaps you've heard of the Department of Justice?

    No, it's not his purview at all. Perhaps you've heard of the police? State troopers? They usually do most of the arresting, and send most of the African Americans men to jail. I doubt the FBI is responsible for putting petty criminals in the clink.
    I have no idea what you're talking about with education as I do not mention it. But I must agree with you, if I brought that up I would be wrong. Good thing I didn't.

    Substandard education is one of the reasons why the minority unemployment rate is so high, especially in inner cities. Again, "substandard education" does not equal "Barack Obama" in "Why does African-American unemployment= 17% ?".

    It's not his fault, at all. I don't even know why you brought up the unemployment rate of African-Americans in the first place.

    You've wildy mis-interpreted me. The link post various talking points. I responded to to some of them.
    Obama appointed the current head of the consumer credit agency during one of the non-recess recesses. There's no reason to think he could not have done that to Elizabeth Warren two year ago. Perhaps you did not know.

    The SEC is institutionally broken. Money is not the problem, but I can understand why you might think that it would be.
    Obama is responsible for the vastly inadequate stimulus. A continuation of Bush II policy. It avoided utter collapses of the economy and was quantifiably better than having done nothing, but not nearly enough for real recovery. Not even on the scale necessary for real recovery.
    ---
    My point on social justice, which may not be obvious there is this: the social justice issue which Obama has made the center of his policy, equality for GLBT, is a sop for his liberal supports. There are far more serious issues being completely ignored. The War on Drugs (African Americans and Latinos, as in it should be called "The War on Brown people"), unemployment and under employment. Those are far more important right now. Yes Rich White Gay people might have to go to Hawaii to get married, bo hoo. 1/3 African Americans Go To Prison. The effective unemployment rate is http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt11q3.htm 16.2% for the population of the United States, those are real social justice issues. DOMA is window dressing.

    EDIT: I may be mistaken but it appears to me that you believe I'm agitating for republican alternatives.
    I am not. I am advocating for progressive ones.

    Seruko on
    "How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
    "You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
    "In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
    "In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
    I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
  • SerukoSeruko Ferocious Kitten of The Farthest NorthRegistered User regular
    Seruko wrote: »

    I think it's a fair criticism to point out that the Obama Administration kind of floundered for the first two years. They labored under the assumption that the Republicans would move across aisles to meet them halfway pretty much until the debt ceiling. The supermajority of blue dogs (who were then replaced by the Tea Party) wasn't the big stick of politics that we remember it as.

    I think his point about African Americans and the disabled is that unemployment is in the shitter for everyone and that adversely effects minorities of all types. I seriously doubt that he was saying Black=Disabled and I think it's a bit unfair of you to assume so.

    I hear your complaint. I still don't have a rational response to that quote. I admit, I'm cough up in my perception of racism there.
    ---

    As to what Obama's inability to provide meaningful economic reform and the cost for that

    redacted:could not find reference.

    It doesn't matter why we're here.
    What matters is Obama had the power to change things for the better and he didnt.
    I'm not suggesting we elect Santorum to fix things, but we should hold Obama accountable.
    Seruko wrote: »
    The President of the US appoints the Comitee members which head the SEC and selects the chair person. Congress has nothing to do with it.
    Wrong, but nice try. SEC members, like many Presidential appointments, have to pass the Senate.
    Does it take work to be that wrong? Recess appointments do you speak them?

    On recess appointments, the Senate has been playing games. We haven't technically had a recess yet.

    And yet Obama has still made recess appointments.

    "How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
    "You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
    "In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
    "In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
    I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Seruko wrote: »
    Seruko wrote: »

    I think it's a fair criticism to point out that the Obama Administration kind of floundered for the first two years. They labored under the assumption that the Republicans would move across aisles to meet them halfway pretty much until the debt ceiling. The supermajority of blue dogs (who were then replaced by the Tea Party) wasn't the big stick of politics that we remember it as.

    I think his point about African Americans and the disabled is that unemployment is in the shitter for everyone and that adversely effects minorities of all types. I seriously doubt that he was saying Black=Disabled and I think it's a bit unfair of you to assume so.

    I hear your complaint. I still don't have a rational response to that quote. I admit, I'm cough up in my perception of racism there.
    ---

    As to what Obama's inability to provide meaningful economic reform and the cost for that

    redacted:could not find reference.

    It doesn't matter why we're here.
    What matters is Obama had the power to change things for the better and he didnt.
    I'm not suggesting we elect Santorum to fix things, but we should hold Obama accountable.
    Seruko wrote: »
    The President of the US appoints the Comitee members which head the SEC and selects the chair person. Congress has nothing to do with it.
    Wrong, but nice try. SEC members, like many Presidential appointments, have to pass the Senate.
    Does it take work to be that wrong? Recess appointments do you speak them?

    On recess appointments, the Senate has been playing games. We haven't technically had a recess yet.

    And yet Obama has still made recess appointments.

    And it's a tricky area.

    The Senate has been doing pro forma sessions of about ten seconds each day during recess timelines. When he made his CBO appointment, the GOP was in outcry. One of the congress people said "This is unconstitutional, we're not in recess! When we return to Washington, I'll make that clear!"

    I don't doubt that if it were to go before a court there's a possibility that those appointments would be struck.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • SerukoSeruko Ferocious Kitten of The Farthest NorthRegistered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Seruko wrote:
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    a5ehren wrote: »
    Seruko wrote: »
    Seruko, you've been both far goosier and far more incoherent in both this and other threads.

    Non-reforming insurance reform. The only reform possible for a generation which fails to address the problems in health care out comes, or health care prices is a bad deal.
    The excuses for this is "but GOP obstructionism," the bad deal mentioned above past with zero GOP support and 100% GOP opposition. So why no meaningful refrom?
    Second excuse "but Democratic obstructionism," if the titular head of a political party cannot rally his own troops to pass his own legislation, then he is a bad leader.
    If the titular head of a political party does not want to pass legislation that he campaigned for, and wants instead to pass legislation that he campaigned against, then he is acting in bad faith. The office of the president is one in which we expect a good leader acting in good faith.

    Please forgive me If I've been unclear about that argument.

    How about this: you craft a reality where you can get blue-dog Democrats in the Senate from Arkansas and Nebraska to get on board with any kind of public healthcare reform (keep in mind that Blanche Lincoln went on to lose her re-election campaign by 21 points despite voting against ACA) and I'll get you one where we have a better healthcare reform.

    Dismissing "Democratic obstructionism" and expecting Obama to rule over the Democratic party with an iron fist is simply ignoring reality.

    Don't forget about Lieberman.

    This is Pure Apologia and without substance. "That Dog won't Hunt."
    as
    1. It is one of the core roles of the president of the US to act as the political head of their own political party. If the president cannot get his own people in line then they have failed in their role as a leader. For example. Dog walkers walk dogs. When dogs don't want to go some place well that is what the freaking leash is for.
    2. Even ignoring the above, there is the well used parliamentary procedure to circumvent the 60 person requirement, a procedure that was ultimately used anyway.

    The least often used, and best in my opinion, argument against Obama the President is that he's just not very good at getting his own legislation past. He's not very good at the executive part of his job. FFS the Republicans impeached Clinton and Clinton still whipped them like dogs to get the legislation that he wanted past, past. If Obama is unable, unwilling or playing some kind of game that prevents him from doing the same to his own people, he's not fit for the job.

    Edit: The same goes for every other major policy fight from the stimulus to the debt ceiling limit. Either Obama is an awful executive (politically naive and impotent) or his real agenda is not to do what's necessary to fix things. Either way.

    No, the President is not supposed to be the head of his party, and frankly, that's a quite dangerous argument to make.

    This is the most basic US Civics.
    Perhaps this third grade primer will help.
    www.scholastic.com/browse/subarticle.jsp?id=1708

    And it's a tricky area.

    The Senate has been doing pro forma sessions of about ten seconds each day during recess timelines. When he made his CBO appointment, the GOP was in outcry. One of the congress people said "This is unconstitutional, we're not in recess! When we return to Washington, I'll make that clear!"

    I don't doubt that if it were to go before a court there's a possibility that those appointments would be struck.


    Really I am totally on board with what you're saying. I think the reason it's been 4 years is that Obama is finally finding himself as the Chief Executive, but that doesn't make me any happier about it and that doesn't make me anymore optimistic about the next 4 years. I know a lot of people here will disagree with me, but I think it's eerily similar to the Bush II presidency. It took about 4 years for both get get some balls and realized there advisers where old bastards who didn't have the weight of the free world on their shoulders. Bush II's second term looks fairly similar to Obama's first, but not at all similar to Bush's first term. There was a remarkable transformation, that I think happened when he realized he could tell Cheney to STFU. That doesn't mean I liked it.

    Seruko on
    "How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
    "You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
    "In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
    "In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
    I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Seruko wrote: »
    Seruko wrote:
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    a5ehren wrote: »
    Seruko wrote: »
    Seruko, you've been both far goosier and far more incoherent in both this and other threads.

    Non-reforming insurance reform. The only reform possible for a generation which fails to address the problems in health care out comes, or health care prices is a bad deal.
    The excuses for this is "but GOP obstructionism," the bad deal mentioned above past with zero GOP support and 100% GOP opposition. So why no meaningful refrom?
    Second excuse "but Democratic obstructionism," if the titular head of a political party cannot rally his own troops to pass his own legislation, then he is a bad leader.
    If the titular head of a political party does not want to pass legislation that he campaigned for, and wants instead to pass legislation that he campaigned against, then he is acting in bad faith. The office of the president is one in which we expect a good leader acting in good faith.

    Please forgive me If I've been unclear about that argument.

    How about this: you craft a reality where you can get blue-dog Democrats in the Senate from Arkansas and Nebraska to get on board with any kind of public healthcare reform (keep in mind that Blanche Lincoln went on to lose her re-election campaign by 21 points despite voting against ACA) and I'll get you one where we have a better healthcare reform.

    Dismissing "Democratic obstructionism" and expecting Obama to rule over the Democratic party with an iron fist is simply ignoring reality.

    Don't forget about Lieberman.

    This is Pure Apologia and without substance. "That Dog won't Hunt."
    as
    1. It is one of the core roles of the president of the US to act as the political head of their own political party. If the president cannot get his own people in line then they have failed in their role as a leader. For example. Dog walkers walk dogs. When dogs don't want to go some place well that is what the freaking leash is for.
    2. Even ignoring the above, there is the well used parliamentary procedure to circumvent the 60 person requirement, a procedure that was ultimately used anyway.

    The least often used, and best in my opinion, argument against Obama the President is that he's just not very good at getting his own legislation past. He's not very good at the executive part of his job. FFS the Republicans impeached Clinton and Clinton still whipped them like dogs to get the legislation that he wanted past, past. If Obama is unable, unwilling or playing some kind of game that prevents him from doing the same to his own people, he's not fit for the job.

    Edit: The same goes for every other major policy fight from the stimulus to the debt ceiling limit. Either Obama is an awful executive (politically naive and impotent) or his real agenda is not to do what's necessary to fix things. Either way.

    No, the President is not supposed to be the head of his party, and frankly, that's a quite dangerous argument to make.

    This is the most basic US Civics.
    Perhaps this third grade primer will help.
    www.scholastic.com/browse/subarticle.jsp?id=1708

    Ignoring the Snark of Seruko, the President is nominally the head of the party. However, this isn't the United Kingdom, so our party system doesn't mean that much. The Speaker, Senate Majority Leader, and the Whips have more pull in the day to day. Ostensibly they're to support the president's agenda but that's not always taken as read.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • SerukoSeruko Ferocious Kitten of The Farthest NorthRegistered User regular
    edited February 2012

    Ignoring the Snark of Seruko, the President is nominally the head of the party. However, this isn't the United Kingdom, so our party system doesn't mean that much. The Speaker, Senate Majority Leader, and the Whips have more pull in the day to day. Ostensibly they're to support the president's agenda but that's not always taken as read.

    It's true, I was over the line there. It's been a rough day. I've been called a republican, illogical and a fantastist for holding a political position the is enormously non-controversial outside of this board.
    ---
    SO my bad.

    Seruko on
    "How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
    "You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
    "In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
    "In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
    I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Seruko wrote: »

    Ignoring the Snark of Seruko, the President is nominally the head of the party. However, this isn't the United Kingdom, so our party system doesn't mean that much. The Speaker, Senate Majority Leader, and the Whips have more pull in the day to day. Ostensibly they're to support the president's agenda but that's not always taken as read.

    It's true, I was over the line there. It's been a rough day. I've been called a republican, illogical and a fantastist for holding a political position the is enormously non-controversial outside of this board.
    ---
    SO my bad.

    I'd hope I've done my part to try to make you feel welcome, I don't think your views are fanatical.

    Here's a koala to cheer you up:

    tumblr_lzx8qpnl6d1r6setxo1_500.jpg

    Of course if you hate koalas, you're dead to me.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Captain MarcusCaptain Marcus Right here in River CityRegistered User regular
    edited February 2012
    placeholder

    Captain Marcus on
    Remember the Maine, Plymouth Rock, and the Golden Rule!
  • Captain MarcusCaptain Marcus Right here in River CityRegistered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Whoa you can't re-edit stuff? Huh.

    Anyways, Seruko, I do agree with you that Obama should be held accountable for his dumb earlier actions. However it looks like he's learned his lesson about how today's Republicans are not the 90's Republicans of compromise. It may be a case of too little too late.

    Also I agree that there are far more serious structural problems in the U.S. than gay marriage rights. I'd happily push back gay marriage a year or two if it meant ending the War on Drugs or ending the cycle of poverty for poor Latinos or blacks.

    Sorry for being all sarcastic!

    If there's one thing I don't like, it's people hating on Obama from the left. He's not a wonderful president, but for now he's much better than his opposition.

    Captain Marcus on
    Remember the Maine, Plymouth Rock, and the Golden Rule!
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Seruko wrote: »

    Ignoring the Snark of Seruko, the President is nominally the head of the party. However, this isn't the United Kingdom, so our party system doesn't mean that much. The Speaker, Senate Majority Leader, and the Whips have more pull in the day to day. Ostensibly they're to support the president's agenda but that's not always taken as read.

    It's true, I was over the line there. It's been a rough day. I've been called a republican, illogical and a fantastist for holding a political position the is enormously non-controversial outside of this board.
    ---
    SO my bad.

    I'd hope I've done my part to try to make you feel welcome, I don't think your views are fanatical.

    Here's a koala to cheer you up:

    tumblr_lzx8qpnl6d1r6setxo1_500.jpg

    Of course if you hate koalas, you're dead to me.

    I bet baby Koalas make the softest gloves

    override367 on
    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    I heard that koala fur is very coarse.

  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    I heard they're not even true bears. They're not fundamentalists.

    steam_sig.png
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    If there's one thing I don't like, it's people hating on Obama from the left. He's not a wonderful president, but for now he's much better than his opposition.

    Why not? They have the right to be angry about how Obama's failed them. Being president doesn't make him above criticism from his own party.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I think it's fine to criticize Obama for feeling that he failed you, I don't think it's fair to criticism him for positions he never actually took.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    I think it's fine to criticize Obama for feeling that he failed you, I don't think it's fair to criticism him for positions he never actually took.

    That's fair.

  • SticksSticks Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Seruko wrote: »

    Ignoring the Snark of Seruko, the President is nominally the head of the party. However, this isn't the United Kingdom, so our party system doesn't mean that much. The Speaker, Senate Majority Leader, and the Whips have more pull in the day to day. Ostensibly they're to support the president's agenda but that's not always taken as read.

    It's true, I was over the line there. It's been a rough day. I've been called a republican, illogical and a fantastist for holding a political position the is enormously non-controversial outside of this board.
    ---
    SO my bad.

    Have you considered that it's more the way that you are delivering the message, more than the actual message itself, which is meeting which such resistance? Honestly, your posts since I started reading have at turns come off as either fairly antagonistic or incredibly patronizing.

    More's the shame, since what you are saying really isn't very controversial. Obama could have done a better job dealing with handling congress (particularly early on), and proposed only legislation that I agree with 100%, but I guess I'm missing (or rather missed) the larger point you are trying to make.

    Sticks on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    And again, find the votes for a bigger stimulus.
    Spoiler:

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    Seruko wrote: »
    Seruko wrote: »

    I think it's a fair criticism to point out that the Obama Administration kind of floundered for the first two years. They labored under the assumption that the Republicans would move across aisles to meet them halfway pretty much until the debt ceiling. The supermajority of blue dogs (who were then replaced by the Tea Party) wasn't the big stick of politics that we remember it as.

    I think his point about African Americans and the disabled is that unemployment is in the shitter for everyone and that adversely effects minorities of all types. I seriously doubt that he was saying Black=Disabled and I think it's a bit unfair of you to assume so.

    I hear your complaint. I still don't have a rational response to that quote. I admit, I'm cough up in my perception of racism there.
    ---

    As to what Obama's inability to provide meaningful economic reform and the cost for that

    redacted:could not find reference.

    It doesn't matter why we're here.
    What matters is Obama had the power to change things for the better and he didnt.
    I'm not suggesting we elect Santorum to fix things, but we should hold Obama accountable.
    Seruko wrote: »
    The President of the US appoints the Comitee members which head the SEC and selects the chair person. Congress has nothing to do with it.
    Wrong, but nice try. SEC members, like many Presidential appointments, have to pass the Senate.
    Does it take work to be that wrong? Recess appointments do you speak them?

    On recess appointments, the Senate has been playing games. We haven't technically had a recess yet.

    And yet Obama has still made recess appointments.

    And it's a tricky area.

    The Senate has been doing pro forma sessions of about ten seconds each day during recess timelines. When he made his CBO appointment, the GOP was in outcry. One of the congress people said "This is unconstitutional, we're not in recess! When we return to Washington, I'll make that clear!"

    I don't doubt that if it were to go before a court there's a possibility that those appointments would be struck.

    I wouldn't put it past the justices to strike down both the appointments and pro forma sessions. I suspect one of the reasons why the GOP hasn't taken this to court is because they know pro forma sessions are on shaky ground and that the justices probably would kill the procedure which could make Obama appear stronger. Getting pro forma sessions nixed also makes it harder for them to obstruct in the future. It's also possible that they can't proceed with a suit because one of the justices told them that it would get dismissed because they don't have any grounds to bring it (I saw this branded about on PBS when they were discussing the appointments). I'm pretty sure the matter will eventually end up in court when Cordray nails someone and their only recourse to weasel out of it is to try to argue that his appointment is invalid and that on those grounds they shouldn't be charged with anything, which means it's going to be a fucking circus.

    I look at the whole appointment thing as a good example of how the Senate is broken. I don't think they should be able to filibuster appointments and the matter should be done on an up or down vote. It disgusts me that the Senate can't do anything unless they have enough support to break a filibuster and I'm pretty sure that isn't intended when the matter can be approved by a simple vote.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    Seruko wrote: »
    Seruko wrote: »

    I think it's a fair criticism to point out that the Obama Administration kind of floundered for the first two years. They labored under the assumption that the Republicans would move across aisles to meet them halfway pretty much until the debt ceiling. The supermajority of blue dogs (who were then replaced by the Tea Party) wasn't the big stick of politics that we remember it as.

    I think his point about African Americans and the disabled is that unemployment is in the shitter for everyone and that adversely effects minorities of all types. I seriously doubt that he was saying Black=Disabled and I think it's a bit unfair of you to assume so.

    I hear your complaint. I still don't have a rational response to that quote. I admit, I'm cough up in my perception of racism there.
    ---

    As to what Obama's inability to provide meaningful economic reform and the cost for that

    redacted:could not find reference.

    It doesn't matter why we're here.
    What matters is Obama had the power to change things for the better and he didnt.
    I'm not suggesting we elect Santorum to fix things, but we should hold Obama accountable.
    Seruko wrote: »
    The President of the US appoints the Comitee members which head the SEC and selects the chair person. Congress has nothing to do with it.
    Wrong, but nice try. SEC members, like many Presidential appointments, have to pass the Senate.
    Does it take work to be that wrong? Recess appointments do you speak them?

    On recess appointments, the Senate has been playing games. We haven't technically had a recess yet.

    And yet Obama has still made recess appointments.

    And it's a tricky area.

    The Senate has been doing pro forma sessions of about ten seconds each day during recess timelines. When he made his CBO appointment, the GOP was in outcry. One of the congress people said "This is unconstitutional, we're not in recess! When we return to Washington, I'll make that clear!"

    I don't doubt that if it were to go before a court there's a possibility that those appointments would be struck.

    I wouldn't put it past the justices to strike down both the appointments and pro forma sessions. I suspect one of the reasons why the GOP hasn't taken this to court is because they know pro forma sessions are on shaky ground and that the justices probably would kill the procedure which could make Obama appear stronger. Getting pro forma sessions nixed also makes it harder for them to obstruct in the future. It's also possible that they can't proceed with a suit because one of the justices told them that it would get dismissed because they don't have any grounds to bring it (I saw this branded about on PBS when they were discussing the appointments). I'm pretty sure the matter will eventually end up in court when Cordray nails someone and their only recourse to weasel out of it is to try to argue that his appointment is invalid and that on those grounds they shouldn't be charged with anything, which means it's going to be a fucking circus.

    I look at the whole appointment thing as a good example of how the Senate is broken. I don't think they should be able to filibuster appointments and the matter should be done on an up or down vote. It disgusts me that the Senate can't do anything unless they have enough support to break a filibuster and I'm pretty sure that isn't intended when the matter can be approved by a simple vote.

    That's probably why the GOP's only offering token resistance to the recess appointments, I hadn't thought of that.

    I think the Senate works better than the House, but the partisanship in it is fucking ridiculous.

    Sadly, I'm fairly certain the GOP is going to gain control of the Senate this year, there's just too many Democrats up for election and the margins are too close. Hopefully they'll be moderate Republicans because I need the Tea Party to die the death of deadly death but I'm not convinced that I'm that lucky. The House will probably flop over though so that's a plus.

    Of course if the circus continues and Obama's coattails get ridiculous maybe the Dems'll get all three. But probably not.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Seruko wrote: »
    The SEC is institutionally broken. Money is not the problem, but I can understand why you might think that it would be.

    Money is genuinely the problem at the SEC(and other financial regulatory bodies)

    Some things to note:

    1) Their budget is set by congress

    2) Their funding comes entirely from fines they levy.

    Think about what that means for a second then get back to me.

    Also, Obama wasn't responsible for the inadequate stimulus. An adequate stimulus could not have been sold

  • Captain MarcusCaptain Marcus Right here in River CityRegistered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Seruko wrote: »
    The SEC is institutionally broken. Money is not the problem, but I can understand why you might think that it would be.

    Money is genuinely the problem at the SEC(and other financial regulatory bodies)

    Some things to note:

    1) Their budget is set by congress

    2) Their funding comes entirely from fines they levy.

    Think about what that means for a second then get back to me.

    Also, Obama wasn't responsible for the inadequate stimulus. An adequate stimulus could not have been sold

    ...that means they don't really have an incentive to slap companies with massive fines due to their budget being so small?

    The SEC and FTC don't exactly bring the hurt when it comes to fines.

    Remember the Maine, Plymouth Rock, and the Golden Rule!
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Seruko wrote: »
    Seruko wrote:
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    a5ehren wrote: »
    Seruko wrote: »
    Seruko, you've been both far goosier and far more incoherent in both this and other threads.

    Non-reforming insurance reform. The only reform possible for a generation which fails to address the problems in health care out comes, or health care prices is a bad deal.
    The excuses for this is "but GOP obstructionism," the bad deal mentioned above past with zero GOP support and 100% GOP opposition. So why no meaningful refrom?
    Second excuse "but Democratic obstructionism," if the titular head of a political party cannot rally his own troops to pass his own legislation, then he is a bad leader.
    If the titular head of a political party does not want to pass legislation that he campaigned for, and wants instead to pass legislation that he campaigned against, then he is acting in bad faith. The office of the president is one in which we expect a good leader acting in good faith.

    Please forgive me If I've been unclear about that argument.

    How about this: you craft a reality where you can get blue-dog Democrats in the Senate from Arkansas and Nebraska to get on board with any kind of public healthcare reform (keep in mind that Blanche Lincoln went on to lose her re-election campaign by 21 points despite voting against ACA) and I'll get you one where we have a better healthcare reform.

    Dismissing "Democratic obstructionism" and expecting Obama to rule over the Democratic party with an iron fist is simply ignoring reality.

    Don't forget about Lieberman.

    This is Pure Apologia and without substance. "That Dog won't Hunt."
    as
    1. It is one of the core roles of the president of the US to act as the political head of their own political party. If the president cannot get his own people in line then they have failed in their role as a leader. For example. Dog walkers walk dogs. When dogs don't want to go some place well that is what the freaking leash is for.
    2. Even ignoring the above, there is the well used parliamentary procedure to circumvent the 60 person requirement, a procedure that was ultimately used anyway.

    The least often used, and best in my opinion, argument against Obama the President is that he's just not very good at getting his own legislation past. He's not very good at the executive part of his job. FFS the Republicans impeached Clinton and Clinton still whipped them like dogs to get the legislation that he wanted past, past. If Obama is unable, unwilling or playing some kind of game that prevents him from doing the same to his own people, he's not fit for the job.

    Edit: The same goes for every other major policy fight from the stimulus to the debt ceiling limit. Either Obama is an awful executive (politically naive and impotent) or his real agenda is not to do what's necessary to fix things. Either way.

    No, the President is not supposed to be the head of his party, and frankly, that's a quite dangerous argument to make.

    This is the most basic US Civics.
    Perhaps this third grade primer will help.
    www.scholastic.com/browse/subarticle.jsp?id=1708

    Yeah, no, the President is not the head of his party (though he is one of its main leaders, and has a significant amount of influence.) The reality is that our parties don't really have what you could consider a true "head" of the party, like you see in other countries. A lot of that is due to how our government is constructed - unlike a parliamentary democracy, our executive and legislative branches are not only separated, but pit against one another by the separation of powers, and another factor is that our parties are closer to the broad coalitions formed in other nations as opposed to their parties.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • SticksSticks Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Mill wrote: »
    Seruko wrote: »
    Seruko wrote: »

    I think it's a fair criticism to point out that the Obama Administration kind of floundered for the first two years. They labored under the assumption that the Republicans would move across aisles to meet them halfway pretty much until the debt ceiling. The supermajority of blue dogs (who were then replaced by the Tea Party) wasn't the big stick of politics that we remember it as.

    I think his point about African Americans and the disabled is that unemployment is in the shitter for everyone and that adversely effects minorities of all types. I seriously doubt that he was saying Black=Disabled and I think it's a bit unfair of you to assume so.

    I hear your complaint. I still don't have a rational response to that quote. I admit, I'm cough up in my perception of racism there.
    ---

    As to what Obama's inability to provide meaningful economic reform and the cost for that

    redacted:could not find reference.

    It doesn't matter why we're here.
    What matters is Obama had the power to change things for the better and he didnt.
    I'm not suggesting we elect Santorum to fix things, but we should hold Obama accountable.
    Seruko wrote: »
    The President of the US appoints the Comitee members which head the SEC and selects the chair person. Congress has nothing to do with it.
    Wrong, but nice try. SEC members, like many Presidential appointments, have to pass the Senate.
    Does it take work to be that wrong? Recess appointments do you speak them?

    On recess appointments, the Senate has been playing games. We haven't technically had a recess yet.

    And yet Obama has still made recess appointments.

    And it's a tricky area.

    The Senate has been doing pro forma sessions of about ten seconds each day during recess timelines. When he made his CBO appointment, the GOP was in outcry. One of the congress people said "This is unconstitutional, we're not in recess! When we return to Washington, I'll make that clear!"

    I don't doubt that if it were to go before a court there's a possibility that those appointments would be struck.

    I wouldn't put it past the justices to strike down both the appointments and pro forma sessions. I suspect one of the reasons why the GOP hasn't taken this to court is because they know pro forma sessions are on shaky ground and that the justices probably would kill the procedure which could make Obama appear stronger. Getting pro forma sessions nixed also makes it harder for them to obstruct in the future. It's also possible that they can't proceed with a suit because one of the justices told them that it would get dismissed because they don't have any grounds to bring it (I saw this branded about on PBS when they were discussing the appointments). I'm pretty sure the matter will eventually end up in court when Cordray nails someone and their only recourse to weasel out of it is to try to argue that his appointment is invalid and that on those grounds they shouldn't be charged with anything, which means it's going to be a fucking circus.

    I look at the whole appointment thing as a good example of how the Senate is broken. I don't think they should be able to filibuster appointments and the matter should be done on an up or down vote. It disgusts me that the Senate can't do anything unless they have enough support to break a filibuster and I'm pretty sure that isn't intended when the matter can be approved by a simple vote.

    There was an article that went in depth on the steady breakdown of appointments through the senate. It was linked awhile ago, but I doubt I could find it now.

    A lot of the appointments shouldn't even be going through the Senate confirmation anymore. Do we really need senate approval for an assistant secretary of public affairs for example? The other positions need to get a straight up or down vote, and the president should be given a great deal of deference in his picks for executive branch positions. These are the people charged with carrying out his policies, and he should be able to have whoever he damn well pleases provided they are qualified.

    When a nobel prize winner in economics appointed to a position on the Fed gets blocked over concerns that he may not be qualified...something has gone pretty fucking wrong with the process.

    Sticks on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    I think it's fine to criticize Obama for feeling that he failed you, I don't think it's fair to criticism him for positions he never actually took.

    I think the problem is most people angry at Obama don't know what he failed on and what he didn't.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Seruko wrote: »
    The SEC is institutionally broken. Money is not the problem, but I can understand why you might think that it would be.

    Money is genuinely the problem at the SEC(and other financial regulatory bodies)

    Some things to note:

    1) Their budget is set by congress

    2) Their funding comes entirely from fines they levy.

    Think about what that means for a second then get back to me.

    Also, Obama wasn't responsible for the inadequate stimulus. An adequate stimulus could not have been sold

    They seemed to think they could sell a larger one though.

    The problem was, they thought they could go back for more if necessary.

This discussion has been closed.