PDA

View Full Version : Obama Using Executive Order To Circumvent Congress After Criticzing GWB For It



duane1969
04-23-2012, 08:51 AM
For Mr. Obama, that meeting was a turning point. As a senator and presidential candidate, he had criticized George W. Bush for flouting the role of Congress. And during his first two years in the White House, when Democrats controlled Congress, Mr. Obama largely worked through the legislative process to achieve his domestic policy goals.

But increasingly in recent months, the administration has been seeking ways to act without Congress. Branding its unilateral efforts “We Can’t Wait,” a slogan that aides said Mr. Obama coined at that strategy meeting, the White House has rolled out dozens of new policies — on creating jobs for veterans, preventing drug shortages, raising fuel economy standards, curbing domestic violence and more.

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.



Can't say that I am surprised. Obama ran on a platform of changing the way politics is done and so far all he has done is fall right in step with doing it the same way as everyone before him.

I am sure some (veggie LOL) will think that I am specifically ripping Obama, and to some extent I am since his entire platform was "CHANGE" and "YES WE CAN", but generally I am tired of politicians running on a platform of attacking something or saying they will do things differently and then doing it exactly the way that they criticized it being done.

I would advocate having a recall vote for any politician that either promises to do things differently or has a platform that opposes something and then falls in step with what they opposed to get elected.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47138446/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/

mrveggieman
04-23-2012, 08:55 AM
I would advocate having a recall vote for any politician that either promises to do things differently or has a platform that opposes something and then falls in step with what they opposed to get elected.



I actually agree with you on this.

MadMan1978
04-23-2012, 08:55 AM
and this differs from the Republicans sitting in the White House?

duane1969
04-23-2012, 09:08 AM
and this differs from the Republicans sitting in the White House?

No. And that was my point. Politicians, in general, need to adhere to their promises of how they will do things. Obama does not get a free pass because GWB did it. Obama ran on a platform of doing things differently.

Any politician who gets elected on a promise of doing things differently from his opponent or predecesor and then reverts back to doing it the exact same way is either A) a flat-out liar, or B) a failure, and either way needs to be recalled for incompetence.

This crap of doing something and then excusing it because someone else did it is getting old.

habsheaven
04-23-2012, 09:11 AM
Can't say that I am surprised. Obama ran on a platform of changing the way politics is done and so far all he has done is fall right in step with doing it the same way as everyone before him.

I am sure some (veggie LOL) will think that I am specifically ripping Obama, and to some extent I am since his entire platform was "CHANGE" and "YES WE CAN", but generally I am tired of politicians running on a platform of attacking something or saying they will do things differently and then doing it exactly the way that they criticized it being done.

I would advocate having a recall vote for any politician that either promises to do things differently or has a platform that opposes something and then falls in step with what they opposed to get elected.



Wouldn't that be EVERY politician?

As for his platform of CHANGE. I will say for the 1000th time; he can only do so much. To change this particular policy he would have to sit on his hands and watch the country fail because that is what the Republicans in both houses want. And for what its worth, his platform for CHANGE is a helluva lot better than the group of Republicans who came to Washington having signed PLEDGES that make compromise IMPOSSIBLE.

duane1969
04-23-2012, 09:12 AM
I should add that at this point I am undecided on who I will vote for, if I vote at all. Stuff like this turns me off to a politician. If there is any chance that I would vote for Obama, him saying one thing and doing something else is definitely going to kill that chance.

If Obama wants the moderate vote then he needs to man-up and have some spine.



Two roads diverged in a wood, and I,
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
- Robert Frost

Afrank45
04-23-2012, 09:13 AM
Here's my quick thought: I think you (duane) are dead on in the your gripe, no president should be allowed to circumvent our checks and balances system, it is there for a reason.

However the problem with your article is the first complaint they have with him is that he used it to create jobs for veterans, not exactly the best foot forward on complaints.

habsheaven
04-23-2012, 09:16 AM
The Robert Frost quote is good. However, it leaves out the possibility that that road less travelled ends at the edge of a cliff.

duane1969
04-23-2012, 09:16 AM
Wouldn't that be EVERY politician?

As for his platform of CHANGE. I will say for the 1000th time; he can only do so much. To change this particular policy he would have to sit on his hands and watch the country fail because that is what the Republicans in both houses want. And for what its worth, his platform for CHANGE is a helluva lot better than the group of Republicans who came to Washington having signed PLEDGES that make compromise IMPOSSIBLE.

Yeah, I hear that a lot. Most people who say that ignore the fact that Obama pledged to fight any legislation put forth by the GOP controlled Congress and has threatened to veto every piece of legislation created by Congress. Luckily for him the Dem controlled Senate has trashed every piece of Congress legislation that has come thru and saved him the trouble. Not exactly bi-partisan efforts by the left if you ask me.

The simple fact is that the GOP controls Congress because the people voted it that way. The Republicans ran on a platform and have stuck to it. For Obama and the Dem controlled Senate to shoot down everything that Congress does is essentially refusing to acknowledge what the people voted for.

habsheaven
04-23-2012, 09:23 AM
If the Republicans put forth a piece of legislation that showed the least bit of compromise rather than constantly grandstanding by passing bills they know are unacceptable, the Senate and Obama might CHANGE their ways.

MadMan1978
04-23-2012, 09:31 AM
No. And that was my point. Politicians, in general, need to adhere to their promises of how they will do things. Obama does not get a free pass because GWB did it. Obama ran on a platform of doing things differently.

Any politician who gets elected on a promise of doing things differently from his opponent or predecessor and then reverts back to doing it the exact same way is either A) a flat-out liar, or B) a failure, and either way needs to be recalled for incompetence.

This crap of doing something and then excusing it because someone else did it is getting old.

Well first I see no problems with it because it legal
and since the Executive order was established the person sitting in the oval office has used it.

shrewsbury
04-23-2012, 09:41 AM
If the Republicans put forth a piece of legislation that showed the least bit of compromise rather than constantly grandstanding by passing bills they know are unacceptable, the Senate and Obama might CHANGE their ways.

we could flip that around and it would make as much sense

duane1969
04-23-2012, 09:42 AM
So what is the excuse for them doing things the "old way" for the 2 years that they controlled all three legislative branches?

It's nice to make excuses for Obama failing by passing the buck, but the simple reality is that he has done things the way it has always been done from day one. They controlled the House, Senate and White House for two full years and did nothing of significance and repeatedly reverted back to doing things the way that GWB had done it.

At some point the apologist have to realize that making excuses for failure is just that, making excuses for failure.

duane1969
04-23-2012, 09:43 AM
Well first I see no problems with it because it legal
and since the Executive order was established the person sitting in the oval office has used it.

So you take no issue with speaking out against something and then turning around and doing it?

habsheaven
04-23-2012, 10:29 AM
we could flip that around and it would make as much sense

True. And therein lies the problem.

shrewsbury
04-23-2012, 10:40 AM
True. And therein lies the problem

yes sir, you are right about that!

pspstatus
04-23-2012, 08:27 PM
This is all politics as usual. Obama may be good in many ways, but he's still basically just another politician. It's a byproduct of a two party system. No matter who is running for President they always come from the same place. Career politicians with plenty of green backs to stand on as a pulpit to shove promises of a better future down our throats. Meanwhile like I have said before the only real goal of most politicians is to further the comfort of the other people sitting on green paper foundations. What we the people fail to realize is that if we united we could send a very strong message to all politicians. It would be rather simple too. We could tell them all that we are sick of being represented by the same good old boys by just not voting at all or with a coordinated write in effort with a simple word like fairness or equality, or two words plainly "the people". Let them know this is in fact OUR country and we don't like how they are running it.

duane1969
04-23-2012, 08:50 PM
This is all politics as usual. Obama may be good in many ways, but he's still basically just another politician. It's a byproduct of a two party system. No matter who is running for President they always come from the same place. Career politicians with plenty of green backs to stand on as a pulpit to shove promises of a better future down our throats. Meanwhile like I have said before the only real goal of most politicians is to further the comfort of the other people sitting on green paper foundations. What we the people fail to realize is that if we united we could send a very strong message to all politicians. It would be rather simple too. We could tell them all that we are sick of being represented by the same good old boys by just not voting at all or with a coordinated write in effort with a simple word like fairness or equality, or two words plainly "the people". Let them know this is in fact OUR country and we don't like how they are running it.

Personally I like the idea of voting out every single current politician. Who gets voted out or in would be irrelevant as it would send a strong and clear message, either fix our country or we will kick you to the curb. Those who were voted in would know they have a short period of time to either get crackin' or start packin'.

I am also a bit tired of the concept that the incumbent is not challenged by someone in his/her own party. Just because they are currently holding the office does not mean that they are automatically the best candidate from their party for the job.

Star_Cards
04-24-2012, 10:27 AM
we could flip that around and it would make as much sense

that's the problem. they act like they are two sides, when they are supposed to be a team. I personally see no way around having sides so it gets a bit old. They both have much more important agendas outside of them working for their constituents.

pspstatus
04-24-2012, 03:07 PM
Personally I like the idea of voting out every single current politician. Who gets voted out or in would be irrelevant as it would send a strong and clear message, either fix our country or we will kick you to the curb. Those who were voted in would know they have a short period of time to either get crackin' or start packin'.

I am also a bit tired of the concept that the incumbent is not challenged by someone in his/her own party. Just because they are currently holding the office does not mean that they are automatically the best candidate from their party for the job.


Either way we do it, if the people of this country made a coordinated effort we can just like you say send a strong clear message to our government.

The thing I like about millions of people who would normally vote abstaining or voting with a write in message is that it will show that we know they are all frauds.