• 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 On Executive Actions: ‘I’ve Got A Pen And I’ve Got A Phone’

Status
Not open for further replies.

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
41,104
Reaction score
12,202
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
WASHINGTON (CBS DC/AP) — Calling for “all hands on deck” to assist the economy, President Barack Obama is urging his Cabinet to identify ways to keep his administration relevant to people struggling in the up-and-down recovery.With two weeks left before delivering an economy-focused State of the Union address to Congress, Obama is picking up the pace of his jobs message and demonstrating how he can advance his economic agenda administratively and through his ability to coax action from important interest groups.
We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” Obama said Tuesday as he convened his first Cabinet meeting of the year.
Obama continued: ”And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible, making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance, to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating.”

Obama On Executive Actions: ‘I’ve Got A Pen And I’ve Got A Phone’ « CBS DC


Liberal Obama supporters always ask the question about what would like Obama to do? Well, when he comes out like this, threatening to just go around congress, and make law himself void of the legislative process, then it is no longer the country I recognize...I guess Podesta is already making his presence felt.

It is no wonder we think Obama is dangerous, because HE IS!

We have a process in this country to do these things Obama wants to do, and it certainly is not unilaterally. We don't have a King, we don't have a dictator, what we have in Obama may actually be worse.
 
We have a process in this country to do these things Obama wants to do, and it certainly is not unilaterally. We don't have a King, we don't have a dictator, what we have in Obama may actually be worse.

Yeah, what we have is worse than North Korean leaders, Saudi Kings, and Iran's leaders. :roll:

And people on the right wonder why people ignore them sometimes or just call them crazy. It's because of rhetoric like this.

Yes, what Obama said was horrible and if he were to make good on that claim I would support complete impeachment charges. However, to say what we have is worse than kings or dictators is simply stupid rhetoric.
 
Liberal Obama supporters always ask the question about what would like Obama to do? Well, when he comes out like this, threatening to just go around congress, and make law himself void of the legislative process, then it is no longer the country I recognize...I guess Podesta is already making his presence felt.

It is no wonder we think Obama is dangerous, because HE IS!

We have a process in this country to do these things Obama wants to do, and it certainly is not unilaterally. We don't have a King, we don't have a dictator, what we have in Obama may actually be worse.

Of all the threads here, this one is the most important. He just declared that he is going to take power from Congress and make laws himself, a clear violation of separation of powers. In fact, clearly a power that the President does not have. This is what dictators do. A bit of coupe, if I may be so bold. The sad part is that the media, the left, and even most of the right are sitting by silently while this happens before our eyes.

This is not a Democrat v. Republican issue. It's a Constitutional and liberty issue.
 
Yea! I hate it when a President wants "make sure our kids are getting the best education possible". And nothing pisses me off more than a President who wants to be "making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance". And I'll be damned if I am going to sit idle when a president wants "to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating.”

:cuckoo::cuckoo:
 
Yea! I hate it when a President wants "make sure our kids are getting the best education possible". And nothing pisses me off more than a President who wants to be "making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance". And I'll be damned if I am going to sit idle when a president wants "to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating.”

:cuckoo::cuckoo:

Naturally Obama will not say just how these wonders are to be accomplished, or why he has not done so for the past 5 years but, to the true Obamabots, that matters little. If the law is not to the liking of Obama, simply ignore that and decree law of the land changes using his mighty pen and phone. ;)
 
Naturally Obama will not say just how these wonders are to be accomplished, or why he has not done so for the past 5 years but, to the true Obamabots, that matters little. If the law is not to the liking of Obama, simply ignore that and decree law of the land changes using his mighty pen and phone. ;)

I don't believe it is the entire reason, but Obama does offer a reason as to why it hasn't happened. He has said many times that Republicans (and I assume he means the bi partisan bull**** that both parties put ahead of the general good of our country) prevents policies and measures from being passed and tried.
 
Liberal Obama supporters always ask the question about what would like Obama to do? Well, when he comes out like this, threatening to just go around congress, and make law himself void of the legislative process, then it is no longer the country I recognize...I guess Podesta is already making his presence felt.

It is no wonder we think Obama is dangerous, because HE IS!

We have a process in this country to do these things Obama wants to do, and it certainly is not unilaterally. We don't have a King, we don't have a dictator, what we have in Obama may actually be worse.

Within the law? Why shouldn't he act as he sees fit? If he breaks the law, he has to be removed. It is very straight forward,
in theory.
;)
 
Yea! I hate it when a President wants "make sure our kids are getting the best education possible". And nothing pisses me off more than a President who wants to be "making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance". And I'll be damned if I am going to sit idle when a president wants "to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating.”

OMG! He said that? Wow, what a guy! Well, we sure figured him wrong! Oh, boy, I bet he loves puppies too!
Well, your post really destroys any Constitutional issues here.:lol:
 
OMG! He said that? Wow, what a guy! Well, we sure figured him wrong! Oh, boy, I bet he loves puppies too!
Well, your post really destroys any Constitutional issues here.:lol:

Yes we have all seen Conservatives try to play that card falsely many times in the past. You people love to act like he is breaking a slew of laws, and sometimes it goes to court and then what happens? Judges know the law, the constitution and the executive powers. You people not liking something does not make it a violation of the constitution or iillegal.
 
Within the law? Why shouldn't he act as he sees fit? If he breaks the law, he has to be removed. It is very straight forward,
in theory.
;)

I think we don't want a President that will act as "he sees fit". We want a President that does not violate the Constitution because he sees fit to do so.
 
I don't believe it is the entire reason, but Obama does offer a reason as to why it hasn't happened. He has said many times that Republicans (and I assume he means the bi partisan bull**** that both parties put ahead of the general good of our country) prevents policies and measures from being passed and tried.

That is our system though. You don't just get to decide to work outside the system when you don't like the results. The simple fact is it isn't Obama's decision to make, it's the people's decision by act of electing representatives.

Obama has failed at leadership because as a president, he should be able to convince Congress that his actions are just. If he can't do that (which he hasn't), then that's just tough beans.

Each presidency we see more and more power being either given to the president or the president takes. Eventually, we will have a dictator if it keeps following this trend. I don't think Obama is a dictator, however, I do think he's crossed the lines of what I find acceptable behavior. And it will only get worse each presidency at this rate.
 
Yes we have all seen Conservatives try to play that card falsely many times in the past. You people love to act like he is breaking a slew of laws, and sometimes it goes to court and then what happens? Judges know the law, the constitution and the executive powers. You people not liking something does not make it a violation of the constitution or iillegal.

You have made absolutely no argument yet. The President took an oath and has a duty to uphold the Constitution. He is not supposed to violate it and then we have to hope that we get a judge that has a spine and will make the correct decision, years later. HE is supposed to be defending the Constitution.
 
You have made absolutely no argument yet. The President took an oath and has a duty to uphold the Constitution. He is not supposed to violate it and then we have to hope that we get a judge that has a spine and will make the correct decision, years later. HE is supposed to be defending the Constitution.

He hasn't actually violated the constitution up to this point.
 
That is our system though. You don't just get to decide to work outside the system when you don't like the results. The simple fact is it isn't Obama's decision to make, it's the people's decision by act of electing representatives.

Obama has failed at leadership because as a president, he should be able to convince Congress that his actions are just. If he can't do that (which he hasn't), then that's just tough beans.

Each presidency we see more and more power being either given to the president or the president takes. Eventually, we will have a dictator if it keeps following this trend. I don't think Obama is a dictator, however, I do think he's crossed the lines of what I find acceptable behavior. And it will only get worse each presidency at this rate.

I don't usually agree with Obama. But if he has plans that might better our country and the only reason it seems he cant get it passed is because republicans have to fight everything he does and he has the power to make that decision without their consent then go for it. Whether anyone likes him or not we elected him president and bi partisan bickering is keeping anything from being accomplished in this country. If the democrats and republicans cant get anything done, what choice would a person have? Do nothing? He'll get ****ted on for that too. He was voted in, and the only way we will know if these policies will work or not is to try it. Alternatively, do nothing. Because at this time I am not aware of any alternative. People are suffering over these political games.
 
I don't usually agree with Obama. But if he has plans that might better our country and the only reason it seems he cant get it passed is because republicans have to fight everything he does and he has the power to make that decision without their consent then go for it. Whether anyone likes him or not we elected him president and bi partisan bickering is keeping anything from being accomplished in this country. If the democrats and republicans cant get anything done, what choice would a person have? Do nothing? He'll get ****ted on for that too. He was voted in, and the only way we will know if these policies will work or not is to try it. Alternatively, do nothing. Because at this time I am not aware of any alternative. People are suffering over these political games.

That's the thing, Obama is acting on what HE thinks is a good move. It doesn't matter to him if he is wrong, nor does it matter to him what OTHER people think.

Our system is not for ONE person to make the call on everything. BTW, just because Obama THINKS it will do the country good, doesn't mean it will. For that reason alone is why we have all these checks and balances that Obama is wanting to by-pass.

Last I checked Obama, nor you, nor I have some sort of crystal ball to see what is truly the right directions for this country. Therefore, I don't trust ONE person to make that call, do you?
 
I don't usually agree with Obama. But if he has plans that might better our country and the only reason it seems he cant get it passed is because republicans have to fight everything he does and he has the power to make that decision without their consent then go for it. Whether anyone likes him or not we elected him president and bi partisan bickering is keeping anything from being accomplished in this country. If the democrats and republicans cant get anything done, what choice would a person have? Do nothing? He'll get ****ted on for that too. He was voted in, and the only way we will know if these policies will work or not is to try it. Alternatively, do nothing. Because at this time I am not aware of any alternative. People are suffering over these political games.

He doesn't have the power to do that, hence the issue with his statement.
 
Of all the threads here, this one is the most important. He just declared that he is going to take power from Congress and make laws himself, a clear violation of separation of powers. In fact, clearly a power that the President does not have. This is what dictators do. A bit of coupe, if I may be so bold. The sad part is that the media, the left, and even most of the right are sitting by silently while this happens before our eyes.

This is not a Democrat v. Republican issue. It's a Constitutional and liberty issue.

No, he didn't. That's the words you're putting in his mouth. He just said he will sign executive orders and take executive action...two things long held to be constitutional in a general sense. WHAT Executive Orders and Actions he takes may be an issue, and may fall outside the lines of what is constitutional. However, he didn't SPECIFY what action or orders would occur, only that he can do them in a general sense. That's not dictatorial, that's not a coup, that's not making a law himself.

YOU claiming he said something that clearly and indisputably he did not say isn't a "constitutional and liberty" issue...it's a reading comprehension and assumption issue.

I imagine ultimately this is going to play out like Gun Control did when the same sort of thing was threatened as a means of solving the problem. A little nibble at changing how current law is enforced may occur, but ultimately his hands will be tied and nothing substantial can be done from the EO's. This is just more attempting to talk up a big game while in reality being rather ineffectual and fruitless which is becoming a trend.
 
OMG! He said that? Wow, what a guy! Well, we sure figured him wrong! Oh, boy, I bet he loves puppies too!
Well, your post really destroys any Constitutional issues here.:lol:

There are no Constitutional issues here. It's just radical partisan rhetoric perhaps inspired by fevered dreams caused by brain parasites. Have you seen your doctor lately? Might be high-time you did. Last time I checked using signing statements, executive orders, and presidential actions were perfectly Constitutional.
 
Of all the threads here, this one is the most important. He just declared that he is going to take power from Congress and make laws himself, a clear violation of separation of powers. In fact, clearly a power that the President does not have. This is what dictators do. A bit of coupe, if I may be so bold. The sad part is that the media, the left, and even most of the right are sitting by silently while this happens before our eyes.

This is not a Democrat v. Republican issue. It's a Constitutional and liberty issue.

Barack Obama: first president to use executive orders.
 
I think we don't want a President that will act as "he sees fit". We want a President that does not violate the Constitution because he sees fit to do so.

I thought we had cleared that up . He can do anything he sees fit to do within the law. He can even talk big and mean. In other words he must stay within the constitution. Is what he is doing unconstitutional?
 
Oh man. It is like this is the first time a President threatened to use an executive order.
 
I don't believe it is the entire reason, but Obama does offer a reason as to why it hasn't happened. He has said many times that Republicans (and I assume he means the bi partisan bull**** that both parties put ahead of the general good of our country) prevents policies and measures from being passed and tried.

The basic problem with the federal gov't is that it is never a matter of changing policy (e.g. stop doing X and do Y instead) but adding ever more federal gov't programs. That is how we ended up with over 70 different federal "safety net" programs, all based on curing insufficient household income (the war on poverty). Proposing, debating and passing laws is not the job of the POTUS alone. While it may be frustrating to get legislation passed the old fashioned, constitutional way it is none the less still required.
 
Yea! I hate it when a President wants "make sure our kids are getting the best education possible". And nothing pisses me off more than a President who wants to be "making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance". And I'll be damned if I am going to sit idle when a president wants "to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating.”

:cuckoo::cuckoo:

That may be what he's putting out there as empty rhetoric. His actions, however, show something completely different.
New federal regulations cost the economy $112 billion in 2013, according to a newly released tally of government figures from the American Action Forum.

Led by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy and health care agencies, the federal government added 157.9 million hours of paperwork for U.S. workers.

American Action Forum, a right-of-center Washington think tank, found in an analysis of Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and Federal Register data released Wednesday that regulators have published $494 billion in net costs in final rules from 2009 through 2013.

Two major proposed rules, relating to emissions standards and efficiency standards for motors, drove the regulatory costs for 2013. Yet, according to AAF, overall regulatory activity was down from previous years in President Obama's tenure. The administration published 77 new major regulations, versus 100, in 2010. Any regulation that results in an annual effect on the economy greater than $100 million is considered major.

The largest new burden in terms of paperwork came from an "obscure" rule relating to affirmative action and nondiscrimination for contractors. It would add 9.9 million hours of paperwork.

AAF also measured the cost of regulations on individual companies by examining their 10-K reports. Among the biggest losers were Bank of America, with $1.7 billion in annual compliance costs, Duke Energy with $5.7 billion, and Pfizer with $1.6 billion.

Regulatory costs are only going to increase in 2014, predicts AAF. Depending on the White House's sensitivity to the politics around regulations and how quickly rules are moved, they could total $143 billion, the think tank estimates.
Study: $112 billion in new regulations in 2013 | WashingtonExaminer.com

Granted, businesses listed are large ones and can absorb and manage these regulatory burdens. However, the smaller businesses, which are also required to comply with the same regulations, it becomes a small business viability threat, and definitely a barrier to small business growth and therefore small business hiring, which the recovery is needing. This is killing the US job engine, namely, the small and medium businesses.

So pardon me if his 'laser focus' on job creation is less than believable.

WRT regulations, how about creating them in such a fashion that it is easier and less expensive for companies to comply with them, thus alleviating the burdens on business, but not discarding the regulation?
 
The basic problem with the federal gov't is that it is never a matter of changing policy (e.g. stop doing X and do Y instead) but adding ever more federal gov't programs. That is how we ended up with over 70 different federal "safety net" programs, all based on curing insufficient household income (the war on poverty). Proposing, debating and passing laws is not the job of the POTUS alone. While it may be frustrating to get legislation passed the old fashioned, constitutional way it is none the less still required.

Still seems to be a case of "i want to be required" not "is required". Plenty of people claim Obama is not allowed to this or that ever since he came to office. He does it anyway, people throw fits, but ultimately it is determined he did not violate any constitution. So while many of you may not like that he has the power, clearly he does.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom