obama a hypocrite once again

#1
D

droski

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
21,914
Likes
3
#1
Obama's Fiats Anger Lawmakers - WSJ.com

As a candidate, Mr. Obama pledged that he wouldn't abuse the presidential signing statement, a declaration issued by the president when he signs a bill to give his interpretation of that law. President George W. Bush used so many signing statements -- more than 750 -- that the American Bar Association criticized it as an abuse of power.

After Mr. Obama's issuance of his second signing statement last month, even some Democrats say he isn't keeping his word on reining in unilateral presidential actions.

"Of course there's a broader issue here," said House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.), referring to the brewing battles with Mr. Obama over presidential prerogative. "It's outrageous. It's exactly what the Bush people did."
 
#2
#2
Well, at least the Democrats in Congress are abiding by principle and asking the POTUS of their own party to cut it out on a particular issue. As opposed to the lemmings we had for the prior 8 years.
 
#3
#3
i think LG and gsvol are really the same person. i thought u were a moderate LG? why so defensive
 
#4
#4
it doesn't bother you that every thing obama critisized bush for he is doing himself?
 
#5
#5
lawgator1 said:
Well, at least the Democrats in Congress are abiding by principle and asking the POTUS of their own party to cut it out on a particular issue. As opposed to the lemmings we had for the prior 8 years.
Click to expand...

8 years? what about from January of 2007 on to the present?
 
#6
#6
lawgator1 said:
Well, at least the Democrats in Congress are abiding by principle and asking the POTUS of their own party to cut it out on a particular issue. As opposed to the lemmings we had for the prior 8 years.
Click to expand...

Surely you jest? An Obama supporter calling others 'lemmings'?
 
#7
#7
I think signing statements are quite ridiculous. I think that most presidents use them, and a few here and there may even be necessary, I don't know the ins and outs of it. But, I know that Bush SIGNIFICANTLY overused them. I suppose it remains to be seen if Obama will similarly abuse them vs. use them...but it can be a fine line. Why are they even necessary or why do they exist?
 
#8
#8
droski said:
it doesn't bother you that every thing obama critisized bush for he is doing himself?
Click to expand...


Every?

Really?

Or are you exaggerating yet again?


TennTradition said:
I think signing statements are quite ridiculous. I think that most presidents use them, and a few here and there may even be necessary, I don't know the ins and outs of it. But, I know that Bush SIGNIFICANTLY overused them. I suppose it remains to be seen if Obama will similarly abuse them vs. use them...but it can be a fine line. Why are they even necessary or why do they exist?
Click to expand...


Well, Bush was what, over 750 in 8 years? That's almost a hundred a year. Obama so far is 2 in six months.
 
#10
#10
droski said:
ignoring the will of the people. check

ends justifying the means. check

catering to the wackjobs of your party. check
Click to expand...


Ignoring the will of the people. Now there's a trite and utterly meaningless saying. (My suspicion, by the way, is that less than 2 percent of the country's population have any clue what such an interpretive statement even is. The number of people that actually have a "will" on this issue is tiny.)

Ends justifying the means. Another platitude. And you don't want to get into a debate about the vices of that approach to governing coming off of 8 years of Bush and Cheney.

Catering to the wackjobs of your party. That just makes me laugh right about not.
 
#11
#11
lawgator1 said:
Ignoring the will of the people. Now there's a trite and utterly meaningless saying. (My suspicion, by the way, is that less than 2 percent of the country's population have any clue what such an interpretive statement even is. The number of people that actually have a "will" on this issue is tiny.)

Ends justifying the means. Another platitude. And you don't want to get into a debate about the vices of that approach to governing coming off of 8 years of Bush and Cheney.

Catering to the wackjobs of your party. That just makes me laugh right about not.
Click to expand...

You simply can't stand any criticism of Count Barackula.

It's interesting that we (no surprise) are seeing all those promises about transparency and a new kind of politician falling away.

The whole "review a bill online before I sign it" BS has already been scrapped.

All the people that bought into his hype of a new tone in DC should be sorely disappointed - if they can admit he isn't doing what he said he would...
 
#12
#12
lawgator1 said:
Ignoring the will of the people. Now there's a trite and utterly meaningless saying. (My suspicion, by the way, is that less than 2 percent of the country's population have any clue what such an interpretive statement even is. The number of people that actually have a "will" on this issue is tiny.)

Ends justifying the means. Another platitude. And you don't want to get into a debate about the vices of that approach to governing coming off of 8 years of Bush and Cheney.

Catering to the wackjobs of your party. That just makes me laugh right about not.
Click to expand...

this is my point. i'm not arguing that bush didn't do it. i'm sayign obama is doing THE SAME THING!!
 
#14
#14
droski said:
this is my point. i'm not arguing that bush didn't do it. i'm sayign obama is doing THE SAME THING!!
Click to expand...

Same thing, maybe, but roughly 100 per year vs. 2 in six months is hardly on the same scale.
 
#15
#15
volinbham said:
You simply can't stand any criticism of Count Barackula.

It's interesting that we (no surprise) are seeing all those promises about transparency and a new kind of politician falling away.

The whole "review a bill online before I sign it" BS has already been scrapped.

All the people that bought into his hype of a new tone in DC should be sorely disappointed - if they can admit he isn't doing what he said he would...
Click to expand...



I have criticized Obama on here a number of times, most notably for failing to intervene and reel in the ridiculous pork in the stimulus spending bill.




___________________________

droski said:
this is my point. i'm not arguing that bush didn't do it. i'm sayign obama is doing THE SAME THING!!
Click to expand...

rjd970 said:
Same thing, maybe, but roughly 100 per year vs. 2 in six months is hardly on the same scale.
Click to expand...


I'll confess that I'm not sure 6 months into it how abusive this will become. I suppose its possible that his rate will increase the further he gets into his term. On the flip side, I think it fair to say that the substance of what he's including in these statements is also a part of the calculus on whether its abusive.

In theory, if by one of these statements he basically rewrote a key provision in a major bill, just one time would be abusive. On the other hand, if its a hundred of them and they don't add or detract anything, then it isn't abusive. And of course that is going to depend on who you ask, on which side of a bill.
 
#16
#16
It's ironic that a major knock on Bush (and Cheney) was the elevation of executive power. Obama is taking this to the next level. His administration's intervention into the private sector is unprecedented. His czar-strategy completely removes Congress from it's role in scrutinizing administrators. In addition, the Fed and Treasury are making massive moves directly into private companies. We've seen the government force out CEOs and reorganize boards, liquidate shareholders, etc.

The signing statements are but one small piece of Team Obama's attempt to further shift the balance of power to the Executive Branch.
 
#17
#17
lawgator1 said:
I have criticized Obama on here a number of times, most notably for failing to intervene and reel in the ridiculous pork in the stimulus spending bill.
Click to expand...


I love your wording though. "Failing to intervene." It implies some sort of passive inaction. He failed to step in between what parties? There was an argument occuring that he needed to mediate? I believe he was rather happy with the bill, to put it another way is just more delirium from you.
 
#18
#18
volinbham said:
It's ironic that a major knock on Bush (and Cheney) was the elevation of executive power. Obama is taking this to the next level. His administration's intervention into the private sector is unprecedented. His czar-strategy completely removes Congress from it's role in scrutinizing administrators. In addition, the Fed and Treasury are making massive moves directly into private companies. We've seen the government force out CEOs and reorganize boards, liquidate shareholders, etc.

The signing statements are but one small piece of Team Obama's attempt to further shift the balance of power to the Executive Branch.
Click to expand...


I agree with this general criticism. In particular, I'd like to see him slow down on the health coverage bill and let the Congress tinker with it for awhile. It will mean a vastly watered down product, but I think change in this area is going to really have to be much more incremental than he realizes.
 
#19
#19
lawgator1 said:
I have criticized Obama on here a number of times, most notably for failing to intervene and reel in the ridiculous pork in the stimulus spending bill.

Do you have no criticism for his continuing pattern of backing away from so many of his "reasons why he represents change"?

I'll confess that I'm not sure 6 months into it how abusive this will become. I suppose its possible that his rate will increase the further he gets into his term. On the flip side, I think it fair to say that the substance of what he's including in these statements is also a part of the calculus on whether its abusive.



In theory, if by one of these statements he basically rewrote a key provision in a major bill, just one time would be abusive. On the other hand, if its a hundred of them and they don't add or detract anything, then it isn't abusive. And of course that is going to depend on who you ask, on which side of a bill.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you applied this "theory" to Bush's use of signing statements...

I'm with TT on this - overall, these tools are boarderline BS. Bush abused them. Obama who roundly criticized Bush's use of them now finds them to be quite useful. The story here is the hypocrisy - not if Bush used them.
 
#20
#20
allvol123 said:
I love your wording though. "Failing to intervene." It implies some sort of passive inaction. He failed to step in between what parties? There was an argument occuring that he needed to mediate? I believe he was rather happy with the bill, to put it another way is just more delirium from you.
Click to expand...

Good point - is everyone forgetting that the stimulus plan came to Pelosi from Team Obama? It was pre-written by his economic team and sent to the House. What came out was basically what went in. He didn't fail to intervene - he is the author of the Porkulus Bill.
 
#21
#21
volinbham said:
Good point - is everyone forgetting that the stimulus plan came to Pelosi from Team Obama? It was pre-written by his economic team and sent to the House. What came out was basically what went in. He didn't fail to intervene - he is the author of the Porkulus Bill.
Click to expand...


Did he author the pork projects or were they put in by Congress? Link?
 
#22
#22
lawgator1 said:
Did he author the pork projects or were they put in by Congress? Link?
Click to expand...

I would say it depends on your definition of pork. His team was the architect of a stimulus bill composed of:

1. limited infrastructure spending
2. focus on shovel-ready over need projects (clearing the way for extensive pork)
3. spending on maintenance of services (e.g. education, public service, etc.) to be handed directly to states as opposed to focused spending on job creation or economic growth.

When I have time, I'll find you the history lesson you seek. Suffice it to say that Team Obama (led by Roemer) handed down a plan with a certain price tag ($700 - 800 billion) with specific plans for the spending (in more detail than I've outlined above). The bill from House was virtually identical to what Team Obama provided with a few tweaks and specifics added.

Team Obama repeatedly argued that spending is spending and by definition stimulative. He personally argued against changing the bill by using the "don't the the perfect be the enemy of good" BS line.
 
#23
#23
lawgator1 said:
Did he author the pork projects or were they put in by Congress? Link?
Click to expand...

Hopefully he does not "fail to intervene" on the healthcare nonsense. This guy sticks his nose in everything yet on the stimulus bill he failed to intervene. You are one of his soldiers.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top