• 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!

Obama Defies Congress With ‘Recess’ Picks. Could Provoke Constitutional Fight.

Eighty Deuce said:
The Senate has followed the proper protocols. Protocols that Obama's own Justice Department argued for. These protocols compel a President to act with the advice and consent of Congress. Such advice and consent Obama has shunned. Now Obama has taken a further unprecedented step to take power from the Legislative. The community organizer needs to be shown the door.
Click to expand...
Unman ... what's unprecedented about it other than it's the first time a black president did it?
 
AdamT said:
*cough* Google "secret hold" *cough*
Click to expand...

Secret holds, anonymous holds and Senate holds cannot occur until a nominee is voted up from committee. Cordray was not. Dems hold 1 or 2 momber voting majorities in all of the committees. Sooooo, why hasnt his nomination left committee? There arent any parliamnetary procedures Im aware of that can bottle up a nomination in committee without a majority.

Im all for Cordray going up for a vote, doesnt really matter, but thats how I feel. Vote up or down but this parliamentary bs needs to end.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Okie doke, my fault then. Thought he hadn't been. I say conduct the nomination hearings and make a vote.

Not what Id call the party position but there you go.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.... But, then the question is NOT with repubs as much as it is with Reid. Why didn't he schedule a vote then?

J-mac

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
 
j-mac said:
Absolutely.... But, then the question is NOT with repubs as much as it is with Reid. Why didn't he schedule a vote then?
Click to expand...

I know you think every thread is about which party to blame, but that's not the case. If it's Reid's fault, fine. Doesn't change anything.
 
misterman said:
I know you think every thread is about which party to blame, but that's not the case. If it's Reid's fault, fine. Doesn't change anything.
Click to expand...

Oh yes it does...see the argument to date is that Obama was justified due republican defiance. Now that we fin out that the nominee was out of committee and waiting on Reid to schedule a vote, you say it doesn't matter. What a bunch of bull.

J-mac

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
 
j-mac said:
Oh yes it does...see the argument to date is that Obama was justified due republican defiance. Now that we fin out that the nominee was out of committee and waiting on Reid to schedule a vote, you say it doesn't matter. What a bunch of bull.
Click to expand...

You don't get it. Republicans filibustered the nomination when it came out of committee.

Senate Republicans Block Cordray for CFPB - Bloomberg
 
misterman said:
Hey, dude, take the tinfoil off your scalp. You could read the news about how all three automakers are profitable now, that should cheer you up. Good thing Obama didn't let the auto companies just die, huh?
Click to expand...
You can have freedom or you can have tyranny. I choose freedom. Companies that fail should fail. When the courts get involved they should follow established law. Creditors should not be tossed aside with unions elevated.

I cannot help that you are blind. It is impossible for one who chooses not to see to ever see.
 
j-mac said:
Oh yes it does...see the argument to date is that Obama was justified due republican defiance.
Click to expand...

Fine. In that case, yes, it was due to Republican defiance. If you knew how the Senate worked you know that. From the Senate glossary:

hold - An informal practice by which a Senator informs his or her floor leader that he or she does not wish a particular bill or other measure to reach the floor for consideration. The Majority Leader need not follow the Senator's wishes, but is on notice that the opposing Senator may filibuster any motion to proceed to consider the measure.

So Reid wasn't going to waste the Senate's valuable floor time when he knew the Republicans were going to filibuster anyway.
 
misterman said:
Fine. In that case, yes, it was due to Republican defiance. If you knew how the Senate worked you know that. From the Senate glossary:

hold - An informal practice by which a Senator informs his or her floor leader that he or she does not wish a particular bill or other measure to reach the floor for consideration. The Majority Leader need not follow the Senator's wishes, but is on notice that the opposing Senator may filibuster any motion to proceed to consider the measure.

So Reid wasn't going to waste the Senate's valuable floor time when he knew the Republicans were going to filibuster anyway.
Click to expand...

In this case they actually DID filibuster the nomination.
 
Misterveritis said:
You can have freedom or you can have tyranny. I choose freedom. Companies that fail should fail. When the courts get involved they should follow established law. Creditors should not be tossed aside with unions elevated.
Click to expand...

Maybe companies that fail should fail, maybe not. But how is it tyranny to save them?

Economically, it made sense. The money will be paid back to the taxpayers, and the company and its workers will also continue paying taxes and support families.

I cannot help that you are blind. It is impossible for one who chooses not to see to ever see.[/QUOTE]

Cut the pious baloney.
 
AdamT said:
In this case they actually DID filibuster the nomination.
Click to expand...

Hey, you're right! Which means J-mac is full of crap, again. Reid DID schedule a vote. The Republicans filibustered.

Sorry, J-mac, try something else and see if it sticks. :roll:

Thanks, AdamT.
 
misterman said:
Maybe companies that fail should fail, maybe not. But how is it tyranny to save them?
Click to expand...
Well, I might not go so far as to call it tyranny, but I would disagree that it is a good thing for the government to do.

Why take money from taxpayers and give it to a corporation that can't make money on the market? When consumers vote with their dollars against a particular corporation, it circumvents their will to have the government take the money by force to prop up the failures.

misterman said:
Economically, it made sense. The money will be paid back to the taxpayers, and the company and its workers will also continue paying taxes and support families.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it makes sense economically. When a corporation makes losses, it is using more value than it is producing. Such activity results in a net loss for society, and should be stopped. Losses are a signal that the business is squandering resources.
 
Centinel said:
Why take money from taxpayers and give it to a corporation that can't make money on the market?
Click to expand...

In rare situations, when you have a really large and important corporation that has a good chance of getting back to health and paying the money back, along with continuing to pay taxes in the future, it might be a good idea. And so far its working out. It's a win for everyone, including the taxpayers.

I'm not sure it makes sense economically. When a corporation makes losses, it is using more value than it is producing. Such activity results in a net loss for society, and should be stopped. Losses are a signal that the business is squandering resources.
Click to expand...

No, sometimes losses are due to external forces like a severe economic crisis, that in the long run a corporation may survive and return to being a net gain for society and produce value again.

The point is that it's temporary. That's what all these dolts yelling "communism" don't get. If the government were permanently subsidizing or owning GM, that would be different. GM will be private again and make a profit and pay the taxpayers back. To let it fail would waste an enormous investment.
 
misterman said:
Maybe companies that fail should fail, maybe not. But how is it tyranny to save them?
Click to expand...
This is a reasonable question. The government has no constitutional authority to use taxpayer dollars to fund businesses. Government involvement distorts the marketplace. And there are very great opportunities for mischief, often called crony capitalism. In this particular case the longstanding bankruptcy laws were tossed on their heads. Bondholders were stripped of their legal place in line to be paid and unions were given money to make them whole.

Economically, it made sense. The money will be paid back to the taxpayers, and the company and its workers will also continue paying taxes and support families.
Click to expand...
It makes no sense economically to give taxpayer dollars to a corporation for any reason other than through purchases of their goods and services. Constitutionally it makes no sense. Why would anyone want the government to be in the position to choose winners and losers in a capitalist free market environment? Why not just surrender and accept that we have become a socialist nation with a government-run centrally controlled command economy?

I said, "I cannot help that you are blind. It is impossible for one who chooses not to see to ever see." Then you said,

"Cut the pious baloney."
Click to expand...

My statement stands.
 
misterman said:
In rare situations, when you have a really large and important corporation that has a good chance of getting back to health and paying the money back, along with continuing to pay taxes in the future, it might be a good idea. And so far its working out. It's a win for everyone, including the taxpayers.



No, sometimes losses are due to external forces like a severe economic crisis, that in the long run a corporation may survive and return to being a net gain for society and produce value again.

The point is that it's temporary. That's what all these dolts yelling "communism" don't get. If the government were permanently subsidizing or owning GM, that would be different. GM will be private again and make a profit and pay the taxpayers back. To let it fail would waste an enormous investment.
Click to expand...

You might not be familiar with the concept of a Constitutionally limited government. Perhaps you should become familiar so that you can see how close we are to losing it all. If the government can do this, if it can direct us to buy stuff, if it can regulate every facet of our lives, then maybe we have already lost it are are just not aware of our loss.
 
misterman said:
In rare situations, when you have a really large and important corporation that has a good chance of getting back to health and paying the money back, along with continuing to pay taxes in the future, it might be a good idea. And so far its working out. It's a win for everyone, including the taxpayers.
No, sometimes losses are due to external forces like a severe economic crisis, that in the long run a corporation may survive and return to being a net gain for society and produce value again.

The point is that it's temporary. That's what all these dolts yelling "communism" don't get. If the government were permanently subsidizing or owning GM, that would be different. GM will be private again and make a profit and pay the taxpayers back. To let it fail would waste an enormous investment.
Click to expand...
I see your point, but I shy away from the government doing special favors for corporations with incompetent management. I would have preferred they allowed the standard bankruptcy route to have played out: the owners lose their equity, the creditors become the new owners. The business continues under new, and hopefully more competent, ownership. The bankruptcy system avoids the government doing special favors for "special" corporations.
 
Misterveritis said:
This is a reasonable question. The government has no constitutional authority to use taxpayer dollars to fund businesses.
Click to expand...

Okay, if that's what you're saying. But that's debatable.

It makes no sense economically to give taxpayer dollars to a corporation for any reason other than through purchases of their goods and services.
Click to expand...

Sure it does. If you're saving a good company from a short-term crisis, it makes lots of sense. And the results are beginning to show.
 
Centinel said:
I see your point, but I shy away from the government doing special favors for corporations with incompetent management.
Click to expand...

Me too, which is why I wouldn't do this for any old company any old time.

I would have preferred they allowed the standard bankruptcy route to have played out: the owners lose their equity, the creditors become the new owners. The business continues under new, and hopefully more competent, ownership. The bankruptcy system avoids the government doing special favors for "special" corporations.
Click to expand...

Well, no, often bankruptcy means the business doesn't continue at all. The new owners get some old factories and equipment, along with lots of liabilities. Thousands lose their jobs and the tax revenue from the company disappears. That's what was likely to happen to GM. If a company is failing, it's failing, and bankruptcy doesn't necessarily save it.
 
Misterveritis said:
You might not be familiar with the concept of a Constitutionally limited government. Perhaps you should become familiar so that you can see how close we are to losing it all. If the government can do this, if it can direct us to buy stuff, if it can regulate every facet of our lives, then maybe we have already lost it are are just not aware of our loss.
Click to expand...

Didn't I already tell you to drop the pious baloney? Don't lecture me, son.
 
misterman said:
Me too, which is why I wouldn't do this for any old company any old time.



Well, no, often bankruptcy means the business doesn't continue at all. The new owners get some old factories and equipment, along with lots of liabilities. Thousands lose their jobs and the tax revenue from the company disappears. That's what was likely to happen to GM. If a company is failing, it's failing, and bankruptcy doesn't necessarily save it.
Click to expand...
I see your point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom