Well baste my pastry, I can't find the link I saw about a month ago.
You'd have to accept snopes I'm afraid.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama...tiveorders.asp
Of course no telling where the counter will be in 4 years.
Well baste my pastry, I can't find the link I saw about a month ago.
You'd have to accept snopes I'm afraid.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama...tiveorders.asp
Of course no telling where the counter will be in 4 years.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
So it's about the same?Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
I mean, he has used a lot fewer vetoes than Bush so far, but it appears Bush used almost all of his in his last two years so who knows where that will leave us.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
In 1979...
AndThat last-minute approval, combined with a flood of investor demand for Treasury bills and a series of technical glitches in processing the backlog of paperwork, resulted in thousands of late payments to holders of Treasury bills that were maturing that April and May.
“You hear lot of people say, ‘The government never defaulted.’ The truth is, yeah, they did . . . It might have been small, it might have been inadvertent, but it happened,” said Terry Zivney, a finance professor at Ball State University who co-authored a paper on the episode entitled “The Day the United States Defaulted on Treasury Bills.”
All things considered, the incident amounted to a minor blip. The Treasury had missed payments on about $120 million worth of bills, a tiny amount even then, given the global investment in U.S. debt. Investors, some of whom joined a class-action suit against the government to recover damages, eventually were paid in full with back interest. T-bills, as they are known, continued to be considered a safe investment. Treasury officials both then and now argued that the event was not even a default, but merely a delay caused by the internal logjam.
“It was quickly forgotten,” said Jim Angel, a finance professor at Georgetown University.
And yet, the study by Zivney and his partner, Dick Marcus, found that even that brief failure to meet some obligations had expensive consequences. The pair concluded “that the series of defaults resulted in a permanent increase in interest rates” of more than half a percent, which over time translated into billions of dollars in increased interest payments on the nation’s debt, a cost shouldered by taxpayers.
“The impact is smaller at first because only new debt is affected,” they wrote. “But over time, as the older debt matures and becomes refinanced at higher rates, the entire cost of the default is realized.”
Zivney said that the 1979 incident, which pales in comparison to the size and scope of payments the Treasury could have to forego if it can no longer borrow money come Aug. 2, offers a useful case study in the real-world consequences that result when the U.S. government doesn’t seem like the sure bet it has always been.
I agree with the first article, that it is a useful case study of the effects of a default, but the situation is hardly equivalent to what happened with the Tea Partiers. Not even close. And the second event is interesting especially as a dry run for 2011, though again not equivalent since there was no bat-shit crazy Tea Party faction willing to make the default really happen (which is why it wasn't an actual crisis). So congratulations, your attack on the word "always" wins! Evidently that means something to you, so yay for you!THE MOST CRUCIAL difference between Clinton’s debt limit battle and the current crisis is that, in 1996, the Republicans were bluffing. No Republican seriously considered defaulting on the debt to be a viable option. “It was essentially unthinkable,”Alice Rivlin, director of the Office of Management and Budget under Clinton, told me. “There was nobody in the Congress who really contemplated forcing a default.” Larry Haas, communications director for the OMB from 1994 to 1997, agreed. “Everybody in the White House and on Capitol Hill knew that the conflict had to end at some point,” Hass told me.
This time around, default seems like a real possibility. Some Republicans, such as Michele Bachmann, have argued that default would be a form of “tough love,” necessary for the country to get its finances in order. Other Republicans simply don’t believe that the government will default if the debt ceiling is not raised. “Even a Clinton, I think, would have had a very difficult time during this current crop of Republicans,” Brookings senior fellowIsabel Sawhill told me.
However, regarding to the substance of this discussion, such as it is, your claims that the January 1, 2013 deadline is anything but an artificial crisis, and that the Tea Party faction in Congress was not being egregiously irresponsible in the debt limit crisis of 2011, are no less ludicrous and dead wrong.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
That does not support your point, for a number of reasons. For starters the raw numbers aren't in your favor, (it looks like he's about on par with prior presidents) but perhaps more importantly executive orders aren't the only measure of a presidents influence and power.
The link I saw had a timeline. It said Bush had 160 by that time. But I am starting to doubt that source.
Still, when your opposition's main goal is to one-term you, why should you consult them in your decisions. It would be different if they'd be more willing to compromise.
Do I need to produce the statement about GOP's main goal?
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
No, just explain the relevance. Its the primary goal of every major political party to win the next election. Anyone who says otherwise is either dishonest or an extremist.
Er, what? How does that have any bearing on what you claimed?
Well, you talked about my point, not the claim you quoted.
And the relevancy
About the claim I made, I already said I was starting to doubt it on account of not being able to reproduce it. Besides that, you asked for a citation, which I provided and saw the difference wasn't as big as I either remembered or read.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
See reply to Enoch. Or read a post.
I feel that political parties are there to run a country. I'll grant you that in the American gameshow Who Wants To Be The Next President this is all treated like a game by the honest moderates they have as politicians.Its the primary goal of every major political party to win the next election. Anyone who says otherwise is either dishonest or an extremist.
Me, as the dishonest extremist I am would think that elections should be decided on whether the political party has done a good job. As the opposition that means to me being able to strike deals to get compromises and get as much of your own political agenda into policies. Video google republican leaders and their thoughts on compromises. They made their feelings about compromises abundantly clear.
So, without having a track record of being able to negotiate deals because you sure as hell aint gonna compromise on precious conservative ideals, how does one try to make sure Obama doesn't get a second term?
edit: Oh and keeping in line with the behavioural traditions of this forum: no you are a dishonest extremist.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
I think Obama is a horrible leader and his presidency so far has very little to show for it, but I also have little to no doubt that a big part of the blame for how dysfunctional US government has become lies on the side of the Republican party. And I don't need any citations for that either.
Congratulations America
The claim I was referring to was Obama hasn't used his executive power as much as other presidents. You seem to believe that executive orders are the sum total of the power a president wields that isn't true. One way or the other, it looks as though you are backing away from that statement, so it's probably a moot point.
I completely 100% agree with you.
I should have added 'at that time in office', but I can't produce a source, so I'm indeed backing off.
I do?You seem to believe that executive orders are the sum total of the power a president wields
I believe it's a way to bypass certain self-declared obstacles.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
I agree. And in order to run the country, they need to win the election. That means every other concern is secondary to that reality.
Its not a politicians job to be an independent non-partisan arbiter on which party is better, that's the voters responsibility. The politicians job is to get themselves and their colleagues elected in order to implement their manifesto.I'll grant you that in the American gameshow Who Wants To Be The Next President this is all treated like a game by the honest moderates they have as politicians.
That's a decision for voters. The GOP politicians should not declare "you know we think Obama should get a second term so we're going to let this one slide".Me, as the dishonest extremist I am would think that elections should be decided on whether the political party has done a good job.
Compromises happen all the time, they need to because the House is controlled by a different party to the Presidency. Doesn't mean politicians should like it.As the opposition that means to me being able to strike deals to get compromises and get as much of your own political agenda into policies. Video google republican leaders and their thoughts on compromises. They made their feelings about compromises abundantly clear.
Again compromises happen all the time but who's going to advertise the fact? "You know what, they're actually a reasonable bunch and it doesn't much matter who's in power really". Honestly?So, without having a track record of being able to negotiate deals because you sure as hell aint gonna compromise on precious conservative ideals, how does one try to make sure Obama doesn't get a second term?
edit: Oh and keeping in line with the behavioural traditions of this forum: no you are a dishonest extremist.
Ultimately, it's the president's ability to strong-arm and incentivize the opposition to come to an agreement. The US president has far more power than Congress (and uses that power quite frequently). I have no doubt that the if the Republicans were less intransigent, an agreement would have been reached, but the same would be the case if Obama wasn't an awful negotiator.
Hope is the denial of reality
Rand, next time you reply, make it relevant.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Even a good negotiator needs a party on the other side that is indeed willing to come to an agreement. As we are being made very aware (for some of us again, for some of us when the deal was made initially) the 'agreement' that created the 'fiscal cliff' was no agreement at all. It was just a suicide pact, for the side of the administration the main reason to enter into it was that it suspended the actual suicide.
Congratulations America
Even dealing with theory rather than reality, political parties are not here to run the country in the US system. That's what the individual politicians are for. The parties are here explicitly to get the right politicians elected.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
If you read Woodruff's latest book, you'll see that Boehner was willing to come to an agreement and has most of his troops lined up, but Obama decided to ask for more at the last second, and Boehner broke off talks.
Hope is the denial of reality
I think that's a safe assumption given that's the only evidence you've produced to support your initial claim. If you believe there are other areas Obama hasn't been wielding his executive authority to the same extent as other presidents in recent years I'm open to hearing them.
You're really fixated on a claim which I based on memory and backed out of since it wasn't key to the point I made.
Slow day? Time to kill?
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
I have no intention of reading that book, but I wonder how that changes anything. You do know that the Republican party had a majority in the House just as it has today?
Congratulations America
I fail to see your point. The House can't pass a budget without the Senate and the president signing off on it.
Hope is the denial of reality
Do I need to remind you that for Senate and President to sign off on a budget there actually needs to be a budget?
Congratulations America
Um, the House passed a budget. It was never taken up by the Senate.
Hope is the denial of reality
Just like in 1995 Gingrich's House passed many budgets, the 2011 House passed budgets too. Just because they weren't accepted by Obama/the Senate doesn't mean they weren't there.
Yes mr Watson, are we going to bring up how the law is delivered to the White House next?
Congratulations America
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...lready-has/?hp
Even the NY Times is saying that Obama tried to change the deal after an initial agreement.
Hope is the denial of reality
Does that make Biden the Emperor, or Tarkin?
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Look, you said that the Obama hasn't been exercising his authority as president. The only claim you used to back that up was the number of executive orders he has issued.
Does it not follow that given your claim, and your supporting evidence for that claim, that you might believe that doing so is the primary manner in which the executive branch exercises its power?
I don't think that's an outrageous conclusion for anyone to draw. But please:
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 11-13-2012 at 11:58 PM.
You know the blogs are not the newspaper ?
Congratulations America
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote