• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

It's Simple Folks

samsmart said:
Which still does not discount the fact that, constitutionally, the President does not have any legislative power to write laws.

Neither is it the purpose of the President to lead Congress. The leaders of Congress is the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate. The Constitution was written with a complete separation of powers in mind. If we want the President to have a leadership role in the legislature, then we will have to write a new Constitution that is based more on a parliamentary system of government in which the legislature and executive is tied together.

Which I'm personally all for, by the by.
Click to expand...

Did you give Bush this much of a pass as your trying to do with Obama?

The problem with your thinking is the president really doesn't do anything, he's just a figure head they bolt on the bow if a sailing ship. However that is not how history is reported, what happens on a presidents watch he/she owns. He is the leader of this country and it's that leadership that you completely dismiss. You live by the sword, you die by the sword. History will record how the national debt rose under Obama, he will go down in history as the biggest borrow and spend president ever in our history. He will do down as the first president to have our credit downgraded, he will go down as the first president to oversee the slowest economic recovery sense world war ll. I could go on and on but you get the idea.
 
Last edited:
Born Free said:
Did you give Bush this much of a pass as your trying to do with Obama?
Click to expand...

Under President Bush, Congress was much more willing to work with his legislative agenda. Which has nothing to do with Bush as the President.

And I hold President Bush responsible for the actions he did in his position of President. When it comes to the actions of Congress during his administration, I hold those Congresses responsible.

Born Free said:
The problem with your thinking is the president really doesn't do anything, he's just a figure head they bolt on the bow if a sailing ship. However that is not how history is reported, what happens on a presidents watch he/she owns. He is the leader of this country and it's that leadership that you completely dismiss. You live by the sword, you die by the sword. History will record how the national debt rose under Obama, he will go done in history as the biggest borrow and spend president ever in our history. He will do down as the first president to have our credit downgraded, he will go down as the first president to oversee the slowest economic recovery sense world war ll. I could go on and on but you get the idea.
Click to expand...

It may be the historical view that the President, whoever he or she may be, "owns" what happens during his administration. But that is quite unfair to the President, as the constitutional powers of the Presidency does not allow him the full powers to deal with all issues that arise during his or her administration.

Rather, the powers of the federal government are divided between the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court. Because those 3 branches share power, they also share responsibility.

If you wish to hold the President responsible for everything that happens then it's only fair that we provide him with all the powers - legislative and judicial as well as executive - in order to deal with political issues.
 
samsmart said:
Under President Bush, Congress was much more willing to work with his legislative agenda. Which has nothing to do with Bush as the President.

And I hold President Bush responsible for the actions he did in his position of President. When it comes to the actions of Congress during his administration, I hold those Congresses responsible.



It may be the historical view that the President, whoever he or she may be, "owns" what happens during his administration. But that is quite unfair to the President, as the constitutional powers of the Presidency does not allow him the full powers to deal with all issues that arise during his or her administration.

Rather, the powers of the federal government are divided between the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court. Because those 3 branches share power, they also share responsibility.

If you wish to hold the President responsible for everything that happens then it's only fair that we provide him with all the powers - legislative and judicial as well as executive - in order to deal with political issues.
Click to expand...

Again you ignore the President's leadership role, how many times has Pelosi blamed Bush for high gas prices. Hell she was the leader of the house. But now she gives Obama a pass. I guess she never got your memo. How many times have you heard "Obama leads from behind" it's the "leadership" of the president that caries the day. That is why the president owns what happens on his watch. That is why the president has veto power. That is how history is recorded.

We can debate this until the cows come home. But when I go to the voting booth I'm voting for a president to "lead" this country in the right direction. Key word "Lead" as in "Leadership."
 
Born Free said:
Again you ignore the President's leadership role, how many times has Pelosi blamed Bush for high gas prices. Hell she was the leader of the house. But now she gives Obama a pass. I guess she never got your memo. How many times have you heard "Obama leads from behind" it's the "leadership" of the president that caries the day. That is why the president owns what happens on his watch. That is why the president has veto power. That is how history is recorded.

We can debate this until the cows come home. But when I go to the voting booth I'm voting for a president to "lead" this country in the right direction. Key word "Lead" as in "Leadership."
Click to expand...

Okay then. Fine.

Now tell me what procedural powers the President has in order to get the legislation he desires approved by both the House and Senate so he can then sign the bills Congress presents to him into law.
 
Born Free said:
That's right you would rather keep sending 500 billion to Oil Lords in the middle east and all the jobs that go with it. That way they keep total control over our economy. No lets not bring home that 500 billion and all those jobs, you like being under the thumb of Oil Lords better.
Click to expand...

That oil does not go in your car. That oil is turned into nonfuel petroleum products like plastics. Oil production has been rising for sometime now along with the gas prices. Our oil is not high enough in quality to be turned into fuel.
 
apdst said:
It's private money, not government money! If they want to build a pipeline and create thousands of jobs, let'em get after it. Purdy much a no-brainer.



What do you do when you can keep your truck repaired? Buy a new one!



Creating jobs in the private sector does nothing for America? Surely you don't mean that.
Click to expand...

My truck is a 1996 Ford that has been repaired numerous times.

How many jobs do you believe that pipeline creates? Until it fails you are only looking at a construction crew which was remarkably less than reported. It would have been a wonderful idea if it actually did something useful other than give temporary jobs to construction workers who are probably working on antother project as I type this
 
Fletch said:
After 30 years of blaming deficits on Reagan, leftists now have to change their tune to bail out Obama. What some people wont do.
Click to expand...
I never mentioned Reagen. It's not about what the Leftists say. It's about what the economists have analyzed. It's a matter of fact. Clinton created a budget that would have given us a huge surplus. Bush started two wars he didn't pay for. He raised the debt to an outragous amount, and now the GOP wants to complain about our debt? Seriously, look at the facts. Obama came into a bad situation economically, the 8 years between the Clinton projected surplus and the time when Obama was elected tells the tale.
 
samsmart said:
Which still does not discount the fact that, constitutionally, the President does not have any legislative power to write laws.

Neither is it the purpose of the President to lead Congress. The leaders of Congress is the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate. The Constitution was written with a complete separation of powers in mind. If we want the President to have a leadership role in the legislature, then we will have to write a new Constitution that is based more on a parliamentary system of government in which the legislature and executive is tied together.

Which I'm personally all for, by the by.
Click to expand...

Hey man, I am totally into any academic discussion you want to have re: the Constitution and the powers it was supposed to give to the Executive branch.

. . .

And when we're done with that, we can come back to the real world - where all of those finer points are lost - and it's pretty much whatever the President wants to have happen. I mean, the President is one guy with enormous power: he's going to do what he wants. And Congress has to mobilize in order to stop him . . . and we all know how often that happens.

Congress sucks at everything . . . and so . . . while your theorizing is appreciated, it's not really relevant. The President has enormous power, and the responsibility for most things falls on him. (Or her.)

And rightly so.
 
The Captain said:
Total failure is failure to all degrees. It doesnt matter if you are left, right, green, or anything in between, Obama is the worst failure this country has EVER seen. I had high hopes that he might have something new or good to offer but nothing but catastrophic failure from day one. It is very simple, no matter what your political stance give someone else a chance at the highest office in the land. Even I don't think Romney can screw things up as bad as Obama has. Obama =TOTAL FAILURE
The future of our great country is at hand right now and we have to reverse this downhill spiral we are on.
Click to expand...

*yawn* This is just the same ole rhetoric spewed against the Bush Administration.
 
MOrion said:
Hey man, I am totally into any academic discussion you want to have re: the Constitution and the powers it was supposed to give to the Executive branch.

. . .

And when we're done with that, we can come back to the real world - where all of those finer points are lost - and it's pretty much whatever the President wants to have happen. I mean, the President is one guy with enormous power: he's going to do what he wants. And Congress has to mobilize in order to stop him . . . and we all know how often that happens.

Congress sucks at everything . . . and so . . . while your theorizing is appreciated, it's not really relevant. The President has enormous power, and the responsibility for most things falls on him. (Or her.)

And rightly so.
Click to expand...

You cannot hold the President responsible for the actions of Congress.

The President is far too busy just dealing with his own Cabinet and the executive Department to also be responsible for what Congress does or doesn't do. Especially when he has no powers over Congress.
 
samsmart said:
You cannot hold the President responsible for the actions of Congress.

The President is far too busy just dealing with his own Cabinet and the executive Department to also be responsible for what Congress does or doesn't do. Especially when he has no powers over Congress.
Click to expand...
Apparently Ms Pelosi, Mr Reid, and Candidate Obama failed to get that message, as did/do the many people who say the exact same thing..."Blame Bush!"
 
Born Free said:
Again you ignore the President's leadership role, how many times has Pelosi blamed Bush for high gas prices. Hell she was the leader of the house. But now she gives Obama a pass. I guess she never got your memo. How many times have you heard "Obama leads from behind" it's the "leadership" of the president that caries the day. That is why the president owns what happens on his watch. That is why the president has veto power. That is how history is recorded.

We can debate this until the cows come home. But when I go to the voting booth I'm voting for a president to "lead" this country in the right direction. Key word "Lead" as in "Leadership."
Click to expand...
I dont see how Romney is a good leader. Honestly, he can't even lead his own campaign well. He has been very unprepared to answer simple questions from the media. He knew his trouble areas, yet he still can't give a good reason why he won't release his taxes. He has only released part of one years tax returns. He whines when the media askes him the same thing they ask of all candidates running for president. He know he was going to be in politics, yet he didn't make sure his tax returns were prepaird in such a way that it would make him look like a good candidate? He runs attack ads, which they all do, then complains when atack ads are run against him. Frankly, he acts more like an entitled rich kid than he does a leader.
 
VanceMack said:
Apparently Ms Pelosi, Mr Reid, and Candidate Obama failed to get that message, as did/do the many people who say the exact same thing..."Blame Bush!"
Click to expand...
It continues to be more than appropriate to "Blame Bush" for all of the in fact great many total mess-ups that he was indeed responsible for. You don't just skate on all that merely by dumping the colossal mess you made off onto the next guy. That blazing arrow of blame will continue to shine on Bush for the rest of recorded history. He will feed at the bottom as at least one of the very worst Presidents in our nation's history. Whining over the fact indicates only a lack of honesty and integrity.

Meanwhile, the current Republcian House and Republican minority in the Senate are veritable armed camps seeking to delay, disrupt, and destabilize as much as they possibly can and then blame Obama for all the ill effects. There is no common ground with these people, as their pointless shreiking and repeated hostage-taking endeavors have only underscored. These are not politicians, but dug-in extremists and ideologues. You can't hunt with a rabid dog.
 
Cardinal Fang said:
It continues to be more than appropriate to "Blame Bush" for all of the in fact great many total mess-ups that he was indeed responsible for. You don't just skate on all that merely by dumping the colossal mess you made off onto the next guy. That blazing arrow of blame will continue to shine on Bush for the rest of recorded history. He will feed at the bottom as at least one of the very worst Presidents in our nation's history. Whining over the fact indicates only a lack of honesty and integrity.

Meanwhile, the current Republcian House and Republican minority in the Senate are veritable armed camps seeking to delay, disrupt, and destabilize as much as they possibly can and then blame Obama for all the ill effects. There is no common ground with these people, as their pointless shreiking and repeated hostage-taking endeavors have only underscored. These are not politicians, but dug-in extremists and ideologues. You can't hunt with a rabid dog.
Click to expand...
:lamo

Keep proving the point...

How much legislation has the house passed only to see it die in the senate? When was the last time the senate passed Obamas budget, let alone ANY budget proposal?

No wonder you keep running into walls. Your partisan blinders dont just keep you from seeing side to side...they keep you completely blind.
 
The Captain said:
Total failure is failure to all degrees. It doesnt matter if you are left, right, green, or anything in between, Obama is the worst failure this country has EVER seen. I had high hopes that he might have something new or good to offer but nothing but catastrophic failure from day one. It is very simple, no matter what your political stance give someone else a chance at the highest office in the land. Even I don't think Romney can screw things up as bad as Obama has. Obama =TOTAL FAILURE
The future of our great country is at hand right now and we have to reverse this downhill spiral we are on.
Click to expand...

The real problem is when people think ONLY one man is the problem. You act as if Obama is capable of doing EVERYTHING all on his own. So either Obama is the smartest president that has ever lived to be able to do all this, or your comments are completely idiotic, partisan, and lack critical thinking skills.

I'll let you decide.
 
VanceMack said:
How much legislation has the house passed only to see it die in the senate?
Click to expand...
How much of that crapola was deliberately written not to be taken up in the Senate at all, but to be used as stupid partisan propaganda? We'll just defund NPR over here and as soon as the Senate doesn't go along with that, we'll call them a bunch of obstructionists who are not willing to compromise. Are you really as easily fooled as that?

VanceMack said:
When was the last time the senate passed Obamas budget, let alone ANY budget proposal?
Click to expand...
LOLOLOL!!! If there were no budget, we would be in a government shutdown. Get it through your head. Budgets are not passed. They are written by the President and then submitted to Congress which in normal times then works to develop and pass the dozen different authorizing and appropriating bills that fund government operations. When an irrational political party blockades that process as part of its pattern of childish temper tantrums, you end up with continuing resolutions and omnibus spending bills in the place of those dozen individual bills, but be assured that a budget has been passed and is in effect. You simply don't know enough about the process to be able to recognize the fact.

VanceMack said:
No wonder you keep running into walls. Your partisan blinders dont just keep you from seeing side to side...they keep you completely blind.
Click to expand...
Pretty feeble. Come back when you know what you are talking about.
 
Last edited:
TheLastIndependent said:
4.5 million jobs is a decent start...
Click to expand...

Hmmm ... and how many lost jobs? Remember, the unemployment figures are for first time applications. Methinks that when totaled up over the Kenyan's tenure is more than the 4.5 million. I guess that the rise in unemployment percentages also shoot a few holes in your contention.

A L
 
Another Lurker said:
Hmmm ... and how many lost jobs? Remember, the unemployment figures are for first time applications. Methinks that when totaled up over the Kenyan's tenure is more than the 4.5 million. I guess that the rise in unemployment percentages also shoot a few holes in your contention.

A L
Click to expand...

The truth is that almost all of the unemployment damage was incurred in Obama's first nine months, when the economy was still falling off a cliff.
 
AdamT said:
The truth is that almost all of the unemployment damage was incurred in Obama's first nine months, when the economy was still falling off a cliff.
Click to expand...

Really, then why aren't the first time unemployment claims much lower? And remember, now jobs created numbers are well below first time claims numbers. And that sir is the truth.

A L
 
Another Lurker said:
Really, then why aren't the first time unemployment claims much lower? And remember, now jobs created numbers are well below first time claims numbers. And that sir is the truth.

A L
Click to expand...

Yep -- really! Unemployment peaked in October of 2009 and it has generally been falling ever since:

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey


Series Id:***********LNS13000000

Labor force status:**Unemployed
Type of data:********Number in thousands
Age:*****************16 years and over


Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2009 12049 12860 13389 13796 14505 14727 14646 14861 15012 15421 15227 15124 *
2010 14953 15039 15128 15221 14876 14517 14609 14735 14574 14636 15104 14393 *
2011 13919 13751 13628 13792 13892 14024 13908 13920 13897 13759 13323 13097 *
2012 12758 12806 12673 12500 12720 12749 12794 * * * * * *
 
Let's talk about how the stimulus would lower the unemployment rate. Let's talk about the folks who have stopped looking for work. Let's look at the REAL unemployment numbers.

The numbers that you present are for first time unemployment. The 4.5 million number is STILL nothing for the Kenyan to brag about. But he does anyway ... ignoring, as Paul Harvey said, "The rest of the story". And that is a pity.

A L
 
Another Lurker said:
Hmmm ... and how many lost jobs? Remember, the unemployment figures are for first time applications.
Click to expand...
Um, the unemployment numbers are for the number of people unemployed. Initial applications for unemployment insurance benefits have exactly NOTHING to do with it. They are two radically different phenomena and data sets.

Consider that new graduates may well be unemployed, but they cannot receive benefits because they have never paid into the UI system. The same is true for jobless people who were once self-employed except in those rare cases where they volutarily chose to make regular contributions to the UI system. Consider also that many people who actually would be eligible for benefits simply don't apply for them.

Another Lurker said:
Methinks that when totaled up over the Kenyan's tenure is more than the 4.5 million. I guess that the rise in unemployment percentages also shoot a few holes in your contention.
Click to expand...
Youthinks wrongly again. The Bush Crash bottomed out at 129.2 million jobs. There are now 133.2 million. Those are persons on non-farm payrolls. Workers in jobs related to farming would have to be added in. The number unemployed people meanwhile peaked at 15.4 million. It is now 12.8 million.
 
Another Lurker said:
Really, then why aren't the first time unemployment claims much lower?
Click to expand...
They ARE much lower now at around 370,000 per week. They had soared to above 700,000 per week under Bush, and do of course remember that they were typically between 250,000 and 300,000 per week at the height of the Clinton economy. We are these days much closer to Clinton than to Bush.

Another Lurker said:
And remember, now jobs created numbers are well below first time claims numbers. And that sir is the truth.
Click to expand...
That's more apples-and-oranges, but the claim is absurdly false. The number of Americans starting a new job in June 2012 was 4,361,000.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal Fang said:
Um, the unemployment numbers are for the number of people unemployed. Initial applications for unemployment insurance benefits have exactly NOTHING to do with it. They are two radically different phenomena and data sets.
Click to expand...

They may be different data sets, but they still show unemployment.

Cardinal Fang said:
Consider that new graduates may well be unemployed, but they cannot receive benefits because they have never paid into the UI system. The same is true for jobless people who were once self-employed except in those rare cases where they volutarily chose to make regular contributions to the UI system. Consider also that many people who actually would be eligible for benefits simply don't apply for them.
Click to expand...

Hmmm ... and don't the folks you point out make the unemployment picture worse? And as far as people who are eligible but don't apply. I'm sure that this MAY happen ... but it hardly constitutes enough folks to be able to begin to alter ANY DATA.

Cardinal Fang said:
Youthinks wrongly again. The Bush Crash bottomed out at 129.2 million jobs. There are now 133.2 million. Those are persons on non-farm payrolls. Workers in jobs related to farming would have to be added in. The number unemployed people meanwhile peaked at 15.4 million. It is now 12.8 million.
Click to expand...

Well, you are true to your Kenyan boy ... blame Bush. Why don't you follow Paul Harvey and mention 'the rest of the story'? You fail to mention a thing called "The Stimulus Package". At that point it was no longer a Bush problem but a Kenyan problem. And for the gazillions that has cost us, it ain't comed no wheres near hepin make the problem get mo' better an dim lies bout de unemployment rates gonna get gooder ... unemployment still bes bad.

A L
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom