• 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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nothing worse than disingenuous or ignorant outrage..... Actually Obama has about the lowest number of executive orders issued of any president in the last 100 years...

Executive Orders Disposition Tables Index
 
cpwill said:
No, that is a strawman. The main driver of our debt is our entitlement spending.

What I am pointing out is that government spending at large generally represents a less productive allocation of resources. You get plenty of allocations that increase net productivity by solving tragedy of the commons (enforcement of contracts, defense, public environmental protection), but those allocations sadly do not make up all or even at this point a majority of what the federal government does. Reducing government spending, therefore, during an economic downturn effectively returns a greater portion of available resources back to more productive uses, thereby aiding the economy, not burdening it.
Click to expand...

I understand some spending may be more beneficial than other kind of spending (especially when it comes to the multiplier effect), however with that said, spending is spending and it does bring up GDP. It also circulates in the economy. My question is how can spending be a "burden" if the idea is to bring up GDP?
 
j-mac said:
Not sure that is true, but I would argue type, and intent over amount.
Click to expand...

Well, I just gave you the index of Executive Orders since Hoover... its pretty easy to verify my statement that Obama has actually issued amongst the least of all presidents..... and if you want to run with your argument about the substance of the EO,s, well, the reference is also your raw data...

Executive Orders Disposition Tables Index

To date, however, all you have argued is your impressions.... and your impression that Obama is running amuck in issuing EO's is just flat out wrong.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
I understand some spending may be more beneficial than other kind of spending (especially when it comes to the multiplier effect), however with that said, spending is spending and it does bring up GDP. It also circulates in the economy. My question is how can spending be a "burden" if the idea is to bring up GDP?
Click to expand...

The multiplier effect is, with few exceptions mostly tied to those same aforementioned tragedies of the commons, generally bunk.

Spending is indeed spending - however, it does not actually bring up real GDP over the long haul, and, for a simple reason. All of the wealth that government spends it has to get somewhere.

That's where the multiplier effect calculations always fall flat - they never include a cost-benefit analysis of that which includes the cost of getting that money in the first place. They just treat government spending as though it was magical money that fell from the heavens, or perhaps was grown on a money tree in DC. If you take a hundred dollars from a business and then pay a government employee thirty-five bucks to purchase sixty-five bucks worth of goods from the same business, the profit of which is five bucks, you haven't actually helped the business.

Furthermore, GDP for the purpose of GDP is useless. A base figure, a score. The score itself is meaningless, what it is supposed to be keeping score of is not (that, for example, is why they intelligently altered the way in which they score GDP last year). Attempting to manipulate GDP in order to look better on paper does not actually make your economy any better in reality.
 
cpwill said:
The multiplier effect is, with few exceptions mostly tied to those same aforementioned tragedies of the commons, generally bunk.

Spending is indeed spending - however, it does not actually bring up real GDP over the long haul, and, for a simple reason. All of the wealth that government spends it has to get somewhere.

That's where the multiplier effect calculations always fall flat - they never include a cost-benefit analysis of that which includes the cost of getting that money in the first place. They just treat government spending as though it was magical money that fell from the heavens, or perhaps was grown on a money tree in DC. If you take a hundred dollars from a business and then pay a government employee thirty-five bucks to purchase sixty-five bucks worth of goods from the same business, the profit of which is five bucks, you haven't actually helped the business.

Furthermore, GDP for the purpose of GDP is useless. A base figure, a score. The score itself is meaningless, what it is supposed to be keeping score of is not (that, for example, is why they intelligently altered the way in which they score GDP last year). Attempting to manipulate GDP in order to look better on paper does not actually make your economy any better in reality.
Click to expand...

The idea of government stimulus is short term. It is to be used until the economy is kicked back into health. GDP is gathered through consumer spending, government spending and investment. Two of those things the government cannot control, but one they most certainly can but in this case choose not to for whatever reason. They did try to give tax cuts back to consumers to try and spend which help (but very little). It is not as effective as things like public works. We did very little of it. Once we can kick in the first two then business investment will happen. Business will only invest in inventory and equipment if they feel they have a need. Let's face it, the economy is still sluggish. The only place its picked up is in low wage part time jobs.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
The idea of government stimulus is short term. It is to be used until the economy is kicked back into health.
Click to expand...

Sure. The main problem being, by taking resources from the more productive portion of the economy and putting them into the less productive portion of the economy, it makes it harder for the economy to "kick back into health".


It's like discovering that building muscle requires that you eat more, so you decide to consume 20 twinkies a day. You are actually screwing yourself, not building.

GDP is gathered through consumer spending, government spending and investment.
Click to expand...

Loosely. For example, we just changed the formula to better account for intellectual property (such as, for example, software). As pointed out, it's a measurement, not the actual economy itself. I like GNP better, frankly, or GNI.

Two of those things the government cannot control, but one they most certainly can but in this case choose not to for whatever reason. They did try to give tax cuts back to consumers to try and spend which help (but very little).
Click to expand...

Even by Keynesian measures it's foolish, as taxpayers tend to utilize windfalls to pay down debt or build up emergency funds during times of economic duress. However, (again) we then increased tax rates, which Keynes also said was a blindingly stupid thing to do during economic troubles.

It is not as effective as things like public works.
Click to expand...

Public works are useless unless they solve a tragedy of the commons issue. A road from nowhere to nowhere is a waste of resources, and a classic example of what I am talking about when I point out that government tends to ineffectively allocate resources.

We did very little of it.
Click to expand...

what the... we had a 800 billion dollar so-called "stimulus" package for that kind of crap.

Once we can kick in the first two then business investment will happen. Business will only invest in inventory and equipment if they feel they have a need. Let's face it, the economy is still sluggish.
Click to expand...

Precisely. And so the last thing it needs is the government taking more resources from it to put towards less-productive venues.
 
cpwill said:
Sure. The main problem being, by taking resources from the more productive portion of the economy and putting them into the less productive portion of the economy, it makes it harder for the economy to "kick back into health".


It's like discovering that building muscle requires that you eat more, so you decide to consume 20 twinkies a day. You are actually screwing yourself, not building.



Loosely. For example, we just changed the formula to better account for intellectual property (such as, for example, software). As pointed out, it's a measurement, not the actual economy itself. I like GNP better, frankly, or GNI.



Even by Keynesian measures it's foolish, as taxpayers tend to utilize windfalls to pay down debt or build up emergency funds during times of economic duress. However, (again) we then increased tax rates, which Keynes also said was a blindingly stupid thing to do during economic troubles.



Public works are useless unless they solve a tragedy of the commons issue. A road from nowhere to nowhere is a waste of resources, and a classic example of what I am talking about when I point out that government tends to ineffectively allocate resources.



what the... we had a 800 billion dollar so-called "stimulus" package for that kind of crap.



Precisely. And so the last thing it needs is the government taking more resources from it to put towards less-productive venues.
Click to expand...

The 800 billion claim on stimulus spending is deceptive when addressing public works and the multiplier effect. If you look at the break down of the stimulus, only a small fraction (27.5 billion) went toward highway and bridge repair. The largest chunk of money went toward individual tax cuts. Nearly four times more money from the stimulus went toward these tax cuts. Like I already mentioned, they allowed minimal results compared to what was expected from public works due to the multiplier effect. I will agree with you the results were not so great due to many factors including money from tax cuts being used for both savings and paying down household debt. That is were the frustration comes in when talking about stimulus spending. It wasn't used in the right places. We continue to have a sluggish economy with mainly low wage jobs replacing the majority of median waged jobs. The government is only useless in allocating resources when elected officials appease their moneyed constitutes rather than the general population. And, I will agree with your last point that government has put forth our tax dollars toward less productive venues like tax cuts for the wealthy thinking something would trickle down. The Gini index doesn't lie. The money has been trickling up and staying there.....wages for many have either stagnated for decades or declined. Time to stop believing such a theory. We need to be proactive and focus on good policies to grow the economy rather than fairy tales.
 
cpwill said:
what the... we had a 800 billion dollar so-called "stimulus" package for that kind of crap.
.
Click to expand...

No no, you misunderstood that, 800 billion was the max for each individual recipient... The last reported numbers on that was 27.7 trillion dollars worth of bailout, with about 700 billion paid back.

That's a bit of a side issue though, so we'll leave it at that.
 
upsideguy said:
Well, I just gave you the index of Executive Orders since Hoover... its pretty easy to verify my statement that Obama has actually issued amongst the least of all presidents..... and if you want to run with your argument about the substance of the EO,s, well, the reference is also your raw data...

Executive Orders Disposition Tables Index

To date, however, all you have argued is your impressions.... and your impression that Obama is running amuck in issuing EO's is just flat out wrong.
Click to expand...

We have a long way to go in this second term, and his promise to use the pen, and phone, plus bringing in a hack like Podesta show a possible move toward writing a whole lot more in that time left. Plus to compare you'd have to look at the type of EO's written by each President to see how they used that power, and as far as I am concerned, none have been so brazen in side stepping congress with that power than has Obama.
 
Candidate Obama understood how the practice violated the Constitution and empowered the president when he said: “Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it, or he can sign it. But what George Bush has been trying to do as part of his effort to accumulate more power in the presidency, is he’s been saying ‘Well, I can basically change what Congress passed by attaching a letter saying, I don’t agree with this part, or I don’t agree with that part. I’m going to choose to interpret it this way or that way,’” He continued, “That’s not part of his power. But this is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he’s going along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for ten years. I believe in the Constitution.” Then he promises not to do the same thing were he to be elected president. “And I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress” (“Obama Signing Statement: Despite Law, I Can Do What I Want on Czars,” by Jonathan Strong, April 15, 2011).

http://www.libertyunderfire.org/201...wers-of-congress-by-their-signing-statements/
 
No signing statements to nullify instructions from Congress
"While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability. I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law."

Candidate Obama 2008'
 
President George W. Bush issued several controversial executive orders surrounding the gathering of intelligence in the war on terror. Arguably the most controversial was a secret executive order he signed in 2002, authorizing the National Security Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop without a warrant on phone calls made by U.S. citizens and others living in the United States.
 
Montecresto said:
President George W. Bush issued several controversial executive orders surrounding the gathering of intelligence in the war on terror. Arguably the most controversial was a secret executive order he signed in 2002, authorizing the National Security Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop without a warrant on phone calls made by U.S. citizens and others living in the United States.
Click to expand...

No one I repeat no one has issued the executive orders Obama has. He has trashed the Constitution and the SCOTUS is calling him on it........He thinks he is a king.
 
Navy Pride said:
No one I repeat no one has issued the executive orders Obama has. He has trashed the Constitution and the SCOTUS is calling him on it........He thinks he is a king.
Click to expand...

I've got news for you NP. they ALL think they are. Some of them think with the "**** you I'm the decider attitude" and some think "if the president does it, it's not illegal", attitude. But it's already been established that Bush signed more. Can you demonstrate how Obama's have been worse. And don't take that as a defense of Obama, I'm just trying to ascertain why Bush gets a pass. Or the excuse your kid gives you when you catch them doing something Wong, that jimmy down the street does it worse or more often?
 
Montecresto said:
I've got news for you NP. they ALL think they are. Some of them think with the "**** you I'm the decider attitude" and some think "if the president does it, it's not illegal", attitude. But it's already been established that Bush signed more. Can you demonstrate how Obama's have been worse. And don't take that as a defense of Obama, I'm just trying to ascertain why Bush gets a pass. Or the excuse your kid gives you when you catch them doing something Wong, that jimmy down the street does it worse or more often?
Click to expand...

Well, one difference I can think of concerning phone records gathering is that under the Bush administration after 9/11/01 the calls data were only gathered after FISA approval, and only with calls that could be traced to have contact with known number from outside the country, and possible terror suspects. Obama's EO seems to have changed that to just blanket gathering and holding of ALL data within the US and going back to see if any of them are in contact with terror suspects. Big difference.
 
j-mac said:
Well, one difference I can think of concerning phone records gathering is that under the Bush administration after 9/11/01 the calls data were only gathered after FISA approval, and only with calls that could be traced to have contact with known number from outside the country, and possible terror suspects. Obama's EO seems to have changed that to just blanket gathering and holding of ALL data within the US and going back to see if any of them are in contact with terror suspects. Big difference.
Click to expand...

President George W. Bush issued several controversial executive orders surrounding the gathering of intelligence in the war on terror. Arguably the most controversial was a secret executive order he signed in 2002, authorizing the National Security Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop without a warrant on phone calls made by U.S. citizens and others living in the United States.


The only equation between the two that needs to be made is that they both are wrong. When a president is allowed to operate in secrecy, he's going to misbehave. I don't know how old you are, but if you still think that only democrats do that then we can be assured of more of the same.
 
Last edited:
Deleted
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
President George W. Bush issued several controversial executive orders surrounding the gathering of intelligence in the war on terror. Arguably the most controversial was a secret executive order he signed in 2002, authorizing the National Security Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop without a warrant on phone calls made by U.S. citizens and others living in the United States.
Click to expand...

This is the only part I take issue with...AFAIK, at that time, the authorization was on phone calls either originating outside the US, to parties within the US, or from parties within the US to phone numbers outside the US. And if that would be the case, I don't have a problem with that so much as I do as just collecting everything and holding it...

The only equation between the two that needs to be made is that they both are wrong. When a president is allowed to operate in secrecy, he's going to misbehave. I don't know how old you are, but if you still think that only democrats do that then we can be assured of more of the same.
Click to expand...

Well, I think we have to compare apples to apples....
 
j-mac said:
This is the only part I take issue with...AFAIK, at that time, the authorization was on phone calls either originating outside the US, to parties within the US, or from parties within the US to phone numbers outside the US. And if that would be the case, I don't have a problem with that so much as I do as just collecting everything and holding it...



Well, I think we have to compare apples to apples....
Click to expand...

No! It went beyond that!

In 2005, after the New York Times broke the story of the surveillance program, the President publicly admitted one portion of it—warrantless surveillance of Americans believed to be communicating with people connected with terrorism suspects—Senior Bush Administration officials later confirmed that the President’s authorization went beyond the surveillance of terrorists and conceded that the program did not comply with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).


What part of this is difficult to understand. All presidential wrong doing starts somewhere. Because partisans don't hold their president accountable, the one that follows does the same and worse. 45 years ago a republican president said, "if the president does it, it's not illegal". What does that mean to you?
 
Navy Pride said:
No one I repeat no one has issued the executive orders Obama has. He has trashed the Constitution and the SCOTUS is calling him on it........He thinks he is a king.
Click to expand...

If so, then certain Republican presidents – including Dwight Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan – must be classified as even more monarchical, un-American and “fascistic” than Barack Obama. The nearby table shows the number of executive orders issued per year by every U.S. president since 1900.

When It Comes To Abuse Of Presidential Power, Obama Is A Mere Piker - Forbes

snopes.com: President Obama's 923 Executive Orders

If facts matter.
 
Montecresto said:
No! It went beyond that!

In 2005, after the New York Times broke the story of the surveillance program, the President publicly admitted one portion of it—warrantless surveillance of Americans believed to be communicating with people connected with terrorism suspects—Senior Bush Administration officials later confirmed that the President’s authorization went beyond the surveillance of terrorists and conceded that the program did not comply with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).


What part of this is difficult to understand. All presidential wrong doing starts somewhere. Because partisans don't hold their president accountable, the one that follows does the same and worse. 45 years ago a republican president said, "if the president does it, it's not illegal". What does that mean to you?
Click to expand...


Oh, "Senior Administration Officials"? As opposed to what, a guy in the office next door? What "Senior Administration Officials"? Who? Don't you think it just a little suspicious that these people are not named? For all I know the NYT made it up.
 
j-mac said:
Oh, "Senior Administration Officials"? As opposed to what, a guy in the office next door? What "Senior Administration Officials"? Who? Don't you think it just a little suspicious that these people are not named? For all I know the NYT made it up.
Click to expand...

If it concerns a republican.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom