Obama's debt reduction plan?

#3
#3
Mandatory national healthcare followed immediately by pulling the plug on all the grandmas and grandpas. Duh. Social security SAVED!
 
#4
#4
Kinda hard to lead when you have no ideas of your own, huh?
 
#5
#5
Of course not... you can come out and with a glib command for Congress to "get it done" as if you are their law professor demanding a term paper.
 
#6
#6
balancedapproach.jpg
 
#8
#8
Where the hell do you find this endless supply if cartoons?
 
#9
#9
Let me be clear.............. Uh i have no plan. Corporate jets bad and buy hybrids, most of all eat your peas.
 
#11
#11
sjt18 said:
Of course not... you can come out and with a glib command for Congress to "get it done" as if you are their law professor demanding a term paper.
Click to expand...

This I actually the course he should take regarding legislation; he should let Congress know that there is an issue that he wants resolution on and then give them a deadine window to get a bill to him. At that point, he either signs or he vetoes and explains why he vetoed.

The POTUS is not a legislator; he should not be drafting legislation (thus, he is only invited to Congress once a year). The fact that this is an issue and that the POTUS is even expected to get involved is, IMO, asinine.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#12
#12
therealUT said:
This I actually the course he should take regarding legislation; he should let Congress know that there is an issue that he wants resolution on and then give them a deadine window to get a bill to him. At that point, he either signs or he vetoes and explains why he vetoed.
Click to expand...
Are you operating under the concept that the President is the Congress' supervisor? If the modern President were like the first few Presidents then you would have a point. The veto was not seen as a hammer to impose the President's will on Congress. It was viewed as an extraordinary measure to avoid Constitutional issues.

The POTUS is not a legislator; he should not be drafting legislation (thus, he is only invited to Congress once a year). The fact that this is an issue and that the POTUS is even expected to get involved is, IMO, asinine.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

IF he is not a legislator in the sense you are suggesting then he should not threaten to veto any bill that passes both houses based on policy disagreement.

I would LOVE to get back to the ideal that you seem to be suggesting but... I don't think Obama's intent is to let the representatives of the people work this out among themselves without his input. He simply doesn't want to be accountable for any of it.
 
#13
#13
Also, if your conception is the way things are or should be then Presidential debates should be pretty boring. Never would a candidate be asked for an "economic plan". If you are right then Bush bears absolutely no responsibility for the current economic problems... nor does any other President.
 
#14
#14
sjt18 said:
Are you operating under the concept that the President is the Congress' supervisor? If the modern President were like the first few Presidents then you would have a point. The veto was not seen as a hammer to impose the President's will on Congress. It was viewed as an extraordinary measure to avoid Constitutional issues.



IF he is not a legislator in the sense you are suggesting then he should not threaten to veto any bill that passes both houses based on policy disagreement.

I would LOVE to get back to the ideal that you seem to be suggesting but... I don't think Obama's intent is to let the representatives of the people work this out among themselves without his input. He simply doesn't want to be accountable for any of it.
Click to expand...

I agree; Obama does need to shut up on this issue. I would like to see the POTUS simply provide an argument for tasks he wants Congress to undertake and the purpose behind such tasks (State of the Union Address???), then let Congress work, unimpeded, through the session. I Congress thinks the POTUS might veto something, they get the bill to him early so that they have time to rework it.

Ultimately, th POTUS should be concerned with organizing his branch in the most effective way to execute legislation and with foreign policy. Involvement in the rigors of domestic legislation is ridiculous, cumbersome, and out of his lane.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#15
#15
sjt18 said:
Also, if your conception is the way things are or should be then Presidential debates should be pretty boring. Never would a candidate be asked for an "economic plan". If you are right then Bush bears absolutely no responsibility for the current economic problems... nor does any other President.
Click to expand...

They do bear responsibility, but they should not. I do not blame Bush for the housin bubble burst; I do blame him for signing the stimulus package and TARP into law. I do not think Clinton was an economic genius I think he greatly benefitted from the tech boom (bubble).

Presidential debates are worthless and there should not be any form of popular vote in electing the POTUS.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#16
#16
therealUT said:
I agree; Obama does need to shut up on this issue. I would like to see the POTUS simply provide an argument for tasks he wants Congress to undertake and the purpose behind such tasks (State of the Union Address???), then let Congress work, unimpeded, through the session. I Congress thinks the POTUS might veto something, they get the bill to him early so that they have time to rework it.

Ultimately, th POTUS should be concerned with organizing his branch in the most effective way to execute legislation and with foreign policy. Involvement in the rigors of domestic legislation is ridiculous, cumbersome, and out of his lane.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I actually agree with that in principle except for the part about Congress trying to please the President. Congress represents US. They should be the source of law and the Prez should respect their role. Vetos should be reserved for things that directly contradict the Constitution.
 
#17
#17
therealUT said:
They do bear responsibility, but they should not. I do not blame Bush for the housin bubble burst; I do blame him for signing the stimulus package and TARP into law. I do not think Clinton was an economic genius I think he greatly benefitted from the tech boom (bubble).

Presidential debates are worthless and there should not be any form of popular vote in electing the POTUS.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Good post.

I do blame Bush and every President before him for the housing bubble. Obama in this one case was the victim... until he went out and made matters worse with his policies. Every single President from Carter to Obama took credit for expanding black home ownership... including Reagan. There were people out there the whole time warning that it was going to be a problem. Wise bankers including most community bankers avoided those loans and investments. It was definitely a preventable problem... but again racial demagogury or the threat of it won over doing the right thing.
 
Last edited:
#18
#18
Obama has no plan because the obvious best way to solve this problem is not the liberal approach.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top