Agreed.

I share a conservative economic concern about deficits.

But "conservatives" for this past generation are all about tax cuts. Until very recently, none of them have challenged the Norquist starve-the-beast strategy at all. The "big government" they rail against is much smaller than the stuff they want to spend without limit on. And "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter".

Look what law they hate most, and what it's projected to do to the deficit. That's the main reason they hate it.

Heh. Most likely.

But if you look at it from an economic perspective, the time to pay down deficits is during good times. Not during a recession or depression.

I share a conservative economic concern about deficits. But if you ask economists, they will say there is a good time for this and a bad time. If you do it during a recession, it will make the recession worse.

-David

Every interesting issue has at least three wrong sides. The Democrats are wrong on a lot where they largely agree with the Republicans. The Democrats are wrong on a lot where they disagree with Republicans, who are also wrong but in a different way. Most Democrats are wrong on a lot where they disagree with each other. Most Democrats are wrong where the most Republicans are also wrong but some individual Republicans at least take sort-of the right side for rhetorical purposes some of the time.

But there is no issue where the Republicans are right and the Democrats are wrong. Face it: the Republicans are way, way more wrong. They're so wrong they would kick Nixon out of the Party for being too far left (he imposed wage and price controls, and signed the EPA into law). They're so wrong they would run Reagan out of the Party with full tar-and-feathers (he raised taxes). And you know what they would do to a certain someone if He showed up and started fomenting rebellion and kicking the money changers out of the temples.

So yes, a bunch of us are never on the GOP side. But that doesn't mean we think the Democrats are the bee's knees, or that the Dems' only failure is not beating up on the Republicans hard enough.

[154] akadjian:
For example, I was writing about the deficit long before it became a fashionable topic for Republicans.

Hasn't fretting about the deficit been fashionable for both parties, whenever the other party's spending happened to be on the table, ever since "both parties" meant Federalists and Anti-federalists?

thanks! :)

damn, i wish the comment had shown up. well feel free to click the thumbs up. the "saint tebow's fire" video was hilarious as well.

~joshua

It all comes down to how politicians are incentivized (a business .

This is the reason why campaign finance reform is so important.

Well said, nypoet!

-David

That would seem to bolster the case that Republicans are not responsible for the gridlock.. :D

certainly not 100% responsible. in my personal experience, both parties have some nice people and some not-so-nice people. they all behave the way campaign finance dictates they must.

when republicans play zero-sum politics, their corporate campaign contributors reward them for it. when they compromise at all, they get hammered. when democrats compromise their professed values, they get rewarded with campaign contributions; when they take their positions to the mat, their corporate campaign funds get hammered.

although democrats are slightly more for consumers and republicans slightly more for corporate interests, there's a huge incentive for dems to compromise and republicans to play chicken, knowing that the dems will always be the first to cave. for years, money from labor helped strike a balance with money from corporate interests. as organized labor declined, that balance ceased to exist. except in those few remaining states with very strong labor unions, it's nearly impossible for a democrat to avoid being a giant hypocrite and still get re-elected. after the citizens united ruling, the few remaining pockets of backbone in the democratic party will cease to exist.

that's the root of democratic hypocrisy. self-interest prevents them from doing what they claim to believe. the campaign finance structure makes republicans much more prone to extremism than hypocrisy, except in cases where they accuse democrats of extremism equivalent to their own. which i might add, michale, you seem far too anxious to buy into.

the assertion that democratic obstruction has been equivalent to republican obstruction is not true, will not be true, and CANNOT be true. republicans aren't "better at it," they're just incentive-bound to take every tactic to the furthest extreme possible. the democrats used the pro-forma session to enforce moderation on a president who was recess-appointing immoderately. the reps used it to force extreme measures upon a president trying to appoint moderately. i don't so much blame either side as the system that forces them both to behave the way they have.

Exactly. I'd say the same about Democratic positions and staking positions which are in the Republican favor as well. For example, I was writing about the deficit long before it became a fashionable topic for Republicans.

The trick is that there needs to be a balance. The GOP took the issue and said this is our only issue (for political reasons). And, the time to do deficit reduction is when you're in a boom, not a recession (it tanks the economy).

But I don't think I have ever heard anyone here say, "Ya know, I think the Dems are wrong and the GOP is right.."

And you likely won't. Just as we're not likely to hear you say "I think the GOP is wrong and the Dems are right."

It's what happens when we get stuck in Dem/Republican mode. Which is why I usually try to avoid this, though in this thread, the topic was about the 2 parties so we went down that path.

My 2 cents anyways ...
-David

:D

Michale

While it is somewhat fair to say that I haven't "fought" for the Dem side, it is undeniable that I have staked positions that are the Dems' positions as well. I have also whole-heartedly condemned Republican positions when appropriate.

But I don't think I have ever heard anyone here say, "Ya know, I think the Dems are wrong and the GOP is right.."

I might be mistaken in that, but I can't think of a single time...

Michale

You do realize that you're hanging out at a progressive website ... :)

I honestly do believe that, in an issue that has the Dems on one side and the GOP on the other, NEVER has there been a time that anyone here (save me) took the GOP's side.

Kidding aside. Let's flip the question around. I've never seen you fight for the Democratic side. What are your thoughts?

This is not to say that there aren't areas where we've found common ground over the years, but you've never fought for the "Democratic side".

I have some thoughts but interested in what you think.

-David

It was back during the Debt Ceiling crisis. CW did an FTP and condemned a couple of Dems and Biden for calling Republicans terrorists..

I am pretty sure you agreed with the term and said something like "the ARE terrorists" or some such..

If I'm wrong, then I definitely do apologize.

It's really not that important anymore..

I DID say it with a smile :D after all... :D

More to the point, however, I never said that everyone here considers Republicans terrorists.

I never said you did. But, other than me, no one else joined in the condemnation of the accusation... So.....

Sure, most of us think Republicans are much worse. But none of us have every given one shred of any reason to believe that we think Democrats are flawless.

As I indicated above... Aside from the MDDOTW awards, usually when people here bitch about Democrats' actions, it's about not sticking it to the Republicans enough.

I honestly do believe that, in an issue that has the Dems on one side and the GOP on the other, NEVER has there been a time that anyone here (save me) took the GOP's side...

Not once...

Now, if that recollection is accurate, you have to admit it's pretty ludicrous..

Can you?? Can you think of ANY issue that had the GOP on one side and the Dems on the other, that someone here said, "Ya know... As much as I hate to admit it, I think the GOP is right and the Dems are wrong.."

I honestly don't think anyone ever has... Well, except our fearless leader, of course. Everyone knows he is the epitome of objectivity and un-biased-ness.. (Damn, there's that brown stuff again, all over my nose!!) :D

Anyways it is, of course, ridiculous to think that the Democrats are ALWAYS right and the Republicans are always wrong..

But it sure seems like that, around here, that's how it is... :D

Michale

I don't remember saying that. Got a link?

More to the point, however, I never said that everyone here considers Republicans terrorists. You claim, constantly, that we all think Democrats are just fine. Then we bitch about Democrats some more, and you claim we think Democrats are wonderful again. The pattern never ends, and never will until you stop posting here or the rest of the population of commenters changes so drastically that your Republican-talking-points approach is solidly in the majority. Trying to change it is futile, so it's for the best if the rest of us just ignore it. (He says, utterly failing to heed his own recommendation.)

Sure, most of us think Republicans are much worse. But none of us have every given one shred of any reason to believe that we think Democrats are flawless.

youtu.be/PTSLGCCowWk

I tried to post my response on YouTube, but it didna work...

So I'll have to do it here....

Oh my frackin' gods!!!!! Yer crazy!!!!! :D That's awesome!!!!! Michale

:D

Speaking of YouTube, did you catch this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAIQWzW1MIc

:D

Michale

all i have to say about that:

http://youtu.be/PTSLGCCowWk

first of all, that WSJ misinterpretation was debunked at the time by none other than CW. about a third of the 47% who didn't think the public option would accomplish its stated goals, thought so because they supported single payer - they thought the public option wasn't liberal enough, but they WERE willing to settle for it, which brings the number back to the initial 60% depending on how the survey was worded. you can manipulate polls all you want, but underneath it there exists a truth. you said 75% were against public options; the fact is almost 60% were in favor - they were just divided on which public option they wanted.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
~Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Burns: "Homer? I want to be loved."
Homer: "I see. Oookaaay.... Well, I'll need some beer......."

"Beer.. The cause of... AND solution to... All of life's problems!"
-Homer Simpson

Michale

Heheh. At the end of the day, it's just politics. It's not like we're arguing about anything important like beer.

:)

Now THAT was funny!!! :D

"The lines are down?? What about the satellites?? Is it snowing in outer space?? Don't you have special lines for emergencies or celebrities or something???.... I'm both! I'm a celebrity in an emergency!"

:D

Michale

I was wrong...

According to Eric FAST-AND-FURIOUS/THEY'RE-JUST-PICKING-ON-ME-BECAUSE-I'M-BLACK Holder, Obama's Non-Recess Recess Appointments were perfectly legal..

How could I be so wrong???

There's no point in repeating this any more. He'll never stop pushing that straw man.

This coming from the guy who claimed that Republicans are terrorists.. :D

I mean who else would put up with us for all these years :)

Funny... I was asking myself the same thing.. 'How could these guys put up with me all these years' :D

Michale

You never know. Michale might actually surprise you. Every time I think I've got him figured out, he throws me a curve.

I mean who else would put up with us for all these years :)

-David

There's no point in repeating this any more. He'll never stop pushing that straw man.

Which I'm sure is true on something. Nothing I've seen though. And not health care.

On health care, they gave away the farm. That's one of my big issues w/ the bill.

Now if you want to make the case that Democrats could be better negotiators, I'm right there with you :)

-David

Well, what if there is no tomorrow? There wasn't one today. - Groundhog Day

Then ya'all will be FOR obstruction and I will remind ya'all of this conversation.. :D

Michale

There is also a BIG difference between compromising for the good of the country and compromising because you know you're going to lose everything if you don't..

The CrapCare "compromise" was the latter and you know it..

I said "Democrats HAVE refused to compromise"... And that is true.. They have..

I have also said that Democrats have been obstructive of the Republican agenda. And that's true... They have..

So, pardon my if I don't get all outraged at the GOP obstruction that you seem to hate so much.

Republicans obstruct Democrats..

Democrats obstruct Republicans..

These are the facts...

It's just that Republicans do it so much better than Democrats...

This is all becoming much too much like a game of Fizzbin for my tastes..

You can nuance things to death all you want...

But it won't change the fact that Obama's actions have considerably weakened the Checks and Balances system that makes our government work...

Michale

We don't have to go around and around on it. It has no bearing on your argument that "Democrats refuse to compromise" whatsoever.

Is there ANY issue that you side with Republicans and against the Democrats?

Again. You are changing the subject. Whether or not I agree w/ Republicans against Democrats has nothing to do with your "Democrats never compromise" argument.

Which is absolutely ridiculous.

You can't say Democrats "refuse to compromise" when an actual compromise was signed into law (which Republicans could have blocked).

But I understand why you keep trying to change the subject.

-David

1. A market driven solution w/ no competing public or government option.

2. No single payer plan.

Both of which Democrats knew the American people were against.. :D On the other hand, the American people were (and are) against CrapCare in general, so.......

We can go round and round on this.. Matter of fact, we have... :D

But we (again) seem to have lost sight of the original issue...

Again, you seem to want me to be outraged by the obstruction of the GOP...

I simply can't because I know that, given the right circumstances, Democrats can be (and HAVE been) just as stubborn....

You seem to believe that Democrats have all the right answers and Republicans have all the wrong ones...

Is there ANY issue that you side with Republicans and against the Democrats???

I don't think there is..

And THAT is the crux of our disagreement... The idea that Democrats have all the right answers and Republicans have no right answers...

Michale

You can change the subject, but you can't say that Democrats did not compromise.

If they didn't compromise, we would have a much better single payer plan.

-David

And according to a brand-new NBC News poll, 47% of Americans -- a plurality -- oppose the public plan, versus 43% who support it. That's a shift from last month's NBC/WSJ poll, when 46% said they backed it and 44% were opposed.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2009/08/18/4431178-nbc-poll-plurality-opposes-public-option

That's the problem with polls... :D You can always find a poll to say just what you want..

However, if you take a look at ALL the polls from that time frame, it's clear the majority of Americans were against CrapCare....

regardless of who has a majority, neither democrats nor republicans are the ones in charge.

That would seem to bolster the case that Republicans are not responsible for the gridlock.. :D

Michale

Here they are again ...

1. A market driven solution w/ no competing public or government option.

2. No single payer plan.

Remember, compromise is not getting everything you ask for.

-David

now that really is moose poop. the public option WAS the compromise, and a majority of americans DID support it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/12/03/us-healthcare-usa-poll-idUSTRE5B20OL20091203

democrats gave up on it because campaign funding from insurance companies wouldn't stand for it. regardless of who has a majority, neither democrats nor republicans are the ones in charge.

But 75% of Americans did NOT want...

Dems didn't compromise single payer and public option to appease Republicans.

Dems compromised on single payer and public option because they knew the American people wouldn't stand for it...

Michale

Exactly WHAT did the GOP get out of CrapCare???

Tort Reform??? Nope, not in there...

Name ONE thing that CrapCare has that came from the GOP..

The one thing you cannot say is that "Democrats were unwilling to compromise."

To use your phrase... "Bull Crap".. :D

Democrats always SAY they are willing to compromise..

But they only SAY it when they don't have the numbers to steamroll the GOP..

Even then, it's just lip service...

Something much better than an out of context quote.

How about every poll that shows the majority of Americans giving Obama low numbers on just about everything..

These polls ALL seem to agree with Obama's own words..

That Americans were better off before Democrats came to power..

The evidence is all around us.

The majority of Americans simply don't like and don't agree where Democrats have taken this country..

Can the GOP do any better??

We're likely to find out next year..

Can the GOP do worse???

I can't see how...

Michale

Bullcrap. The GOP got everything they wanted. That's why they provided the tipping vote. If they didn't want it, they could have blocked it.

Dems compromised single payer and the public option. Everything I and most progressives wanted.

How did Republicans compromise? Well, they moved some to actually vote on health care at all. They accepted a market solution. So they did compromise.

This is what most people forget. The Affordable Care Act was a compromise.

They forget this because Republicans then turned around and blamed it all on Obama.

The one thing you cannot say is that "Democrats were unwilling to compromise."

Well, you can say it. But it has no basis in reality.

What more evidence do you need?

Something much better than an out of context quote.

-David

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCpEr09wtP4

Michale

We have had 3 years of the Democratic agenda...

Even OBAMA himself said Americans were better off before the "Democratic agenda"..

What more evidence do you need???

Michale

Your entire premise rides on one false assumption..

That Democrats want to work with Republicans..

There is simply NO evidence beyond lip service to support such a claim.

CrapCare is a perfect example..

Democrats paid a LOT of lip service to bi partisanship, but when the rubber hit the road, Democrats just gave the GOP the bird and did what the Democrats wanted to do...

During that two years, Democrats simply steamrolled over the GOP because they could.

And NOW that the GOP has the power to push back, NOW Democrats whine and cry and want to talk "compromise"...

Maybe if Democrats showed willingness to compromise back then, the GOP would be willing to compromise now.

Democrats have reaped what they have sown... Their chickens have come home to roost..

I have many criticisms of Democrats, but in this situation, there is one party responsible.

While it's true that you have many criticisms of Democrats, most of them are of the "they don't beat up enough on the Republicans" variety.. :D

But it's also fair to say that, around here, when the Democrats and the Republicans are on opposite sides of an issue, the Democrats are right each and every time.. Without fail...

That is simply not logical...

But give me a break with trying to blame the gridlock on Democrats. Unless you can tell me how you work with a party that refuses to work with you.

Simple.. Democrats shouldn't have steamrolled over the GOP just because they could...

Any recalcitrance on the GOP's part is a direct result of the Democrat's actions during 2009-2010..

In shorter terms....

Payback's a bitch... :D

Michale

If we would implement the Democratic agenda and it failed, I would admit it. So far, I've seen little which Democrats have done which I would put in the "fail" category.

Fail category = deregulation of financial industry (see Wall St crash). Fail category = overreach on foreign policy (see wars).

You will yell "health care"! Well health care hasn't even been implemented yet. There's no evidence of a fail.

You'll also likely say "economy"! But the economy has improved under Obama. It just hasn't improved enough. And Republicans are blocking further stimulus as this is their election plan. Block further economic improvements and use this to un-elect Obama.

When there is clear evidence to show how Democratic ideas have failed, then I'll believe it. Right now, I see lots of people saying "it's the end of world" and no end of world.

-David

Again. And again. And again. No one said this. No one said Democrats are all sweetness and light. How long have you read CW? Everyone is saying you have to look at things situation by situation. You as well as anyone should know we have many issues with Democrats.

In the situation of this Congress, however, Republicans have blocked as much legislation as they can and that is the reason the Congress hasn't accomplished anything.

In the Senate, Dems do have a majority, but Republicans have used the filibuster and "60 votes" to block everything they can.

While in the House, well, in the House, Republicans have a majority and have used it at every chance to advance their agenda w/o looking at compromising.

In each situation, Republicans have a choice. They can choose to try to work together or they can choose to block. In many situations, they have done nothing but block.

Let's look at things from the Democratic perspective. What could they do to make the Congress do more? Well, they could simply pass the Republican agenda. This is not compromise. Or they could use the bully pulpit to try to rally public opinion. This has been done. Or they can use checks and balances to try to accomplish what they can. This was the case in the recess appointments. Or they can call the Republican bluff. This was the case in the budget ceiling standoff. What else can they do? They can work to elect more Democrats. They will try this as well.

Summary. If you look at the situation, the Republican strategy is to force Democrats to 1) do 100% of what we want, or 2) we're going to sit here and block things.

What else could Democrats do to work with Republicans?

You would likely say "work with them," but you can't work with someone who is unwilling to compromise.

You yourself have stated their strategy. You'd rather see Congress do nothing than work with Democrats. Well, they are. You've got that.

But give me a break with trying to blame the gridlock on Democrats. Unless you can tell me how you work with a party that refuses to work with you.

I have many criticisms of Democrats, but in this situation, there is one party responsible.

-David

http://apbweb.com/forums/general-topics-4/impressions-observations-secret-service-personnel-assigned-guard-u-s-presidents-46384/

Michale

Republicans have become a do nothing Congress.

And Democrats are blameless??

{{{{{sssssiiiiiiiiiggggggghhhhhh}}}}}

Democrats controlled Congress for two years.

Granted, it wasn't a DO nothing Congress back then. It was a disaster for this country...

I would much prefer Congress do nothing rather than take actions that make things twenty times worse...

I also remind you that Democrats still control the Senate..

So, if it's a "do nothing" Senate, then Democrats are to blame..

Or, as we back to the idea that everything is the fault of the Republicans when it's a Republican Congress and everything is STILL the fault of Republicans when it's a Democrat Congress..

Are Democrats *EVER* at fault for anything at any time??

Joshua,

those two things about obama's actions in libya and last week really are kind-of puzzling,

OK, I'll take it!! :D

That's sooooo much better than the "Obama can do no wrong" vibe I usually get from ya'all... :D I say "usually" because your objections to some of Obama's actions are well known.. :D

those are far from the only things obama has done wrong, but he still has a ton of catching up to do to get anywhere near the same galaxy as his predecessor.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. Obama has done sooo much more to expand Executive Power at the expense of Checks And Balances than Bush was ever even ACCUSED of doing...

dsws,

By putting that in quotation marks, you seem to be attributing it to me.

No, I didn't mean it came from you.. Usually my direct quotes are italicized..

I mean that as a general quote as to what ya'all appear to believe..

I insist that the particulars of what is good or evil is the kind of question that I may be wrong about, and by the same token so may you or anyone else. I believe that to be true, even though I don't claim to have a convincing argument for it.

That's always been my position as well, which explains a lot of the frustration I feel around here sometimes..

No one seems to think that Obama just MIGHT be the totally crappy leader and President that some people say he is and Democrats might be as bad for this country as some people say they are.....

I'll be the first to admit that I *MIGHT* be wrong..

But, up until now, I thought I was the ONLY one who could admit that.

But it's absolutely vital as a working assumption. We must proceed on the premise that there's something to discuss. If we engage in futile discussion, little is lost by it. But if we proceed directly to conflict when fruitful discussion is possible, that's a step on the long road toward nuclear omnicide.

Well said...

"omnicide"?? That's a new one...

"Endangered dirt. That's a new one."
-Christian Slater, BROKEN ARROW

:D

Michale

So, it's your opinion that obstructionism in and of itself, is not the problem here.

Well, if calling it the problem to be construed as saying that it's the only significant problem, then ok. There's no one thing that's the problem.

But make no mistake, obstructionism is a problem.

There are diverse interests and beliefs in any society. If they don't meet in open conflict, they meet in politics. The dynamics of that meeting can take any of three forms: deliberation, negotiation, and obstructionism.

Deliberation is what should happen. The sides should come to understand each other's positions, and arrive at a deeper understanding of the issues at stake, so that each side is influenced by the others in a process that would ultimately lead to agreement. Deliberation, even very good deliberation, often doesn't lead to agreement. Situations change faster than they can be thoroughly considered by mere humans. But good deliberation also can lead to an understanding that a particular issue is a conundrum, where reasonable minds can differ, and can come up with a reasonable way of carrying on with such a matter unresolved.

Negotiation is when the sides can't communicate well enough to arrive at a common set of preferences, but they can usefully work toward a mutual accommodation where all sides take each other's preferences into account and work together to come up with something that will satisfy all as well as may be. As such, it's a failure, but no shame. We can't reasonably expect deliberation to succeed so completely that there's nothing left to be negotiated.

Obstructionism comes into play when the sides can't even communicate well enough to negotiate. As such, it's a shame, but not an abomination. There are courses of action that would be far worse than a mere failure to negotiate.

Republicans have nothing to say that's worth deliberating about, as far as I can tell. Old-fashioned Burkean conservatism has a point, but right-radicals like the contemporary Republicans wouldn't know old-fashioned Burkean conservatism if it bit them on the anatomy. Honest libertarianism often has a point, but despite the Party's pseudo-libertarian wing, contemporary Republicanism is as authoritarian an outlook as you could ask for.

Republicans have had no need to negotiate, for so long that they've forgotten how. Blame the Democrats for that one if you want, but blame the electorate too. Turnout votes count half as much as swing votes, but these days there are always more than twice as many turnout votes to be gained as swing votes. There are historical reasons why the Republicans figured that out first, and left the Democrats scrambling for swing votes they abandoned, but the fact is that they did.

Republicans are "evil"....

Therefore, when Republicans use obstruction, it's "evil".

Nope. Republicans are evil, and Republicans breathe, but breathing still isn't evil. Gratuitous obstructionism is bad, and can be evil depending on the motivation behind it.

"THEY think different than we do, so THEY are evil and WE are good"

By putting that in quotation marks, you seem to be attributing it to me. It is not my position, at all. I recognize a wide range of issues about which reasonable minds can differ. I believe that good is good, no matter what anyone thinks of it; likewise evil is evil, no matter what anyone thinks of it.

I insist that the particulars of what is good or evil is the kind of question that I may be wrong about, and by the same token so may you or anyone else. I believe that to be true, even though I don't claim to have a convincing argument for it. But it's absolutely vital as a working assumption. We must proceed on the premise that there's something to discuss. If we engage in futile discussion, little is lost by it. But if we proceed directly to conflict when fruitful discussion is possible, that's a step on the long road toward nuclear omnicide.

those two things about obama's actions in libya and last week really are kind-of puzzling, especially since he had other, less-murky options in both cases. he could easily have obtained congressional approval for libya, even a couple days after the fact. he could have used his constitutional power to declare congress adjourned, and made as many recess appointments as he pleased.

those are far from the only things obama has done wrong, but he still has a ton of catching up to do to get anywhere near the same galaxy as his predecessor. once i wrote a song with all of the major bush administration lies and screw-ups, and i had to cut about half of it out because it was too long to play.

I thought we were talking about precedent.

But yes, I do see the partisanship. Republicans have become a do nothing Congress. And when the President does something which highlights their do nothingness, they whine about it.

-David

ahem. *cough*cough* "enhanced interrogation techniques" *cough*cough*

Touche.... :D

But still, that is NO WHERE near as lame as "kinetic military action"..

Plus it wasn't used to violate the War Powers Act...

It wasn't even used to violate the law because Congress did authorise torture...

Yes, your Democrats too.... :D

Michale

And yet, they never tried a recess appointment when there was no recess...

The never tried to ignore the War Powers Act...

But yet, with what the DID do....

How the Left did scream.. How the Left did yell.. How the Left did accuse "War Criminal" and "Hitler" and all the other stuff....

So, it would seem that the Left DOES react when a GOP president does things "wrong".

Just not when a Dem president does things wrong... :D

That's all I wanted to "hear"....

David,

What about, as CW mentioned, the use of the filibuster on a continuous basis? Breaking precedent.

Who established the "precedent" that filibusters can only be used so many times??

No one. There is no such precedent..

Its obvious the Senate is not really holding sessions.

Yet they were when Democrats did it...

THAT'S my whole point. It was Democrats who perfected the "Pro Forma" sessions during the Bush years..

NOW that it messes with the Dem agenda, all of the sudden NOW it's "the Senate is not really holding sessions"...

Don't you see the partisanship???

Michale

What about Bush breaking precedent to use recess appointments as a first option? Nypoet's point with the number of appointees.

What about, as CW mentioned, the use of the filibuster on a continuous basis? Breaking precedent.

The problem is you and David are trying to change the argument from 'Was Obama right in totally ignoring established precedent' to 'is the CFPB a worthwhile organization'.

Perhaps, but the worth of something is always going to be an argument when it comes to precedent.

Otherwise, you would blindly do the same things that you've always done for no reason.

The other thing that gets me is that this is really not a huge precedent breaker. Its obvious the Senate is not really holding sessions. And recess appointments have been a precedent for a while. Also, none of this has been actually fought out in the courts.

There is, however, another reason for talking about the CFPB and that is that this is really what's going on. Republicans are opposed to the CFPB. They're not concerned about accountability, or precedent, or anything else for that matter.

Except making sure the CFPB can't do it's job and maybe blocking everything else Obama wants to do too.

-David

bush and cheney did so many things that were legally, ethically and morally questionable during their term in office, to be honest i'm shocked that they didn't do this one too. if they had, it wouldn't be much more than a blip by comparison. if romney gets elected and does it, my attitude will be resignation, because it's not as if we have come to expect anything else of anyone in washington.

ahem. *cough*cough* "enhanced interrogation techniques" *cough*cough*

I don't know why I bother asking this?? :D

Even if you said, "yes" I wouldn't believe ya'all... :D

But then again, YA'LL wouldn't believe ya'all! :D

Michale

not in an attempt to nullify the execution of a law that has already been passed.

Each player gets six cards, except for the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.
The second card is turned up, except on Tuesdays.
Two jacks are a "half-fizzbin".
If you have a half-fizzbin:

The top hand is a "royal fizzbin", but the odds against getting one are said to be "astronomical".

Like I said, if you want to get down to specifics, we could probably come to the conclusion that NOTHING ever done has EVER been done before...

But the simple fact is, Democrats have used this gimmick to their political advantage, just as Republicans have used it to THEIR advantage...

Ho, hum... Nothing new here...

Would ya'all have the same attitude towards a non-Recess Recess Appointment, if it were done by a Republican President for the purposes of advancing an agency that Democrats where whole-heartedly and across-the-board opposed to??

Michale

. As for the WPA, all presidents have ignored it to some degree or another.

No president has ignored it in it's entirety...

Especially with such a lame excuse as "It's not a war, it's a kinetic military action"... I mean, seriously!!! :D

But what Presidents have ignored it to some degree?? And what degree??

If you want to talk about ignoring precedent, and trampling on tradition, we can talk about how the GOP is misusing the precedent of the filibuster. They've used the tactic more times in the past few years than in our entire previous history combined. THAT is ignoring precedent, which is precisely what has put Obama and the Dems in the situation they found themselves in vis-a-vis the CFPB nomination. Previously, filibusters were only used for extraordinary circumstances, and not for every freakin' bill and nomination the other side put forward. So the GOP is the one trampling on this tradition and precedent in the first place...

As I said, it's not as if Democrats don't use filibusters and obstruction out of some noble gesture or some such.

The ONLY reason that Democrats don't obstruct and filibuster as much or more than Republicans is because they don't have the Party discipline to do so..

You and I both know that, if Democrats had the Party discipline, their numbers would be right on up there with the GOPs...

So, let's not pretend that Democrats are restraining themselves out of the goodness of their hearts and love of country.. :D

Regardless, this puts us smack dab in the middle of it being a question of "numbers"...

Despite NYpoet's awesome Beer example (Of course numbers matters when one is talking beer!! :D) the simple fact is, if a little obstruction and filibustering is OK, then a lot is just as OK..

"How many people does it take, Admiral, before it becomes wrong? Hmm? A thousand, fifty thousand, a million? How many people does it take, Admiral? "
-Captain Jean Luc Picard, STAR TREK 9 INSURRECTION

When it comes to filibustering and obstruction, numbers don't matter. If a little is OK, then a lot is OK.

That's my opinion...

If it's OK for Democrats to do a "little" filibustering and a "little" obstruction, then it's OK for Republicans to do a lot...

Michale

that point is phrased in absolutes, so i refuse to acknowledge it as "the point." you're trying to convince everyone else here to answer what we consider to be an invalid question. given the inadequacy of the question, in [102] i gave the best answer i could.

Congress has NEVER stooped to using the Nomination Confirmation process to exact a political price!!???

not in an attempt to nullify the execution of a law that has already been passed. it's also a democratic majority senate, so in addition to rejecting the premise that any absolute right or wrong exists in this situation, i also reject the premise that it is a conflict between the democrats and the republicans. sure, more R's want the bureau gone than D's, but the real conflict is not between parties, it's between branches. if it weren't, people from different parties wouldn't be split on the issue. for example:

Mr. Reid implemented the practice to block the appointment of Steven Bradbury as the permanent director of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel amid controversies surrounding his legal opinions on interrogation techniques. Mr. Bradbury has become an advocate of the move Mr. Obama made.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/us/politics/experts-say-obamas-recess-appointments-could-signify-end-to-a-senate-role.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Be careful with your "precedent" argument. The precedent in question is only a few years old, not some centuries-long legislative tradition. As for the WPA, all presidents have ignored it to some degree or another. It's never been tested in court, because both sides are afraid of what SCOTUS might have to say about its constitutionality.

If you want to talk about ignoring precedent, and trampling on tradition, we can talk about how the GOP is misusing the precedent of the filibuster. They've used the tactic more times in the past few years than in our entire previous history combined. THAT is ignoring precedent, which is precisely what has put Obama and the Dems in the situation they found themselves in vis-a-vis the CFPB nomination. Previously, filibusters were only used for extraordinary circumstances, and not for every freakin' bill and nomination the other side put forward. So the GOP is the one trampling on this tradition and precedent in the first place...

:-)

-CW

Would ya'all have the same attitude towards a non-Recess Recess Appointment, if it were done by a Republican President for the purposes of advancing an agency that Democrats where whole-heartedly and across-the-board opposed to??

"It's OK, you can say it. They know the answer"
-Joe Pesci, MY COUSIN VINNY

:D

Michale

Really!!!!

Congress has NEVER stooped to using the Nomination Confirmation process to exact a political price!!???

NEVER!!!????? EVER!!!????

OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!!!!!!!!!!

:D

So following established precedent is the end all and the be all.

If an Administration states, in a legal/court venue, that a certain precedence is established, then I would think it would behoove said Administration to FOLLOW the precedent they establish..

If you can't trust an Administration to follow it's own precedents, then that naturally follows that the Administration is not trustworthy...

Michale

We get it. Your point is established precedent.

So following established precedent is the end all and the be all.

How then do you feel about the GOP breaking established precedent and blocking the implementation of a law passed by Congress?

-David

Want to make sure it's not mistaken as a "lame counter argument" in the 90th percentile.. :D

Michale

No, I am trying to keep the argument centered on the point...

The point being were the actions of the president right or wrong..

Considering that the Obama Administration, on two separate occasions, established the 3-day rule for purposes of "Recess Appointments" and then ignored that seems to me to put Obama's actions firmly in the WRONG category...

Speaking of right and wrong... I had an epiphany on the drive home....

I have been posting here to CW.COM for going on 6 years now... And in that almost 6 years, in EVERY instance where the Democrats and Republicans were on opposite sides of an issue, the DEMOCRATS were ALWAYS right!!!

And the Republicans were ALWAYS wrong!!!

I mean, that's amazing, iddn't it!!!!???

What a track record!!! The Democrats are ALWAYS right and the Republicans are ALWAYS wrong!!!

What perfection!! Forget Democrats!! These people must be Borg!!! :D

Michale

NOW... Does the fact that the CFPB is the greatest achievement in the whole wide universe justify Obama ignoring established precedent and doing a "Recess Appointment" when the Senate is not in Recess??

or, we could take it the other way, say it's the worst agency ever made, and will totally cripple our economic recovery. oh wait, we already have... well in any case, it's a statute, which means it is in the domain of the executive branch. does the fact that it was spawned by satan make it okay for the senate to prevent the president from enforcing it?

see, you're attempting to narrow the argument, when there are really three or four different arguments going on at once. you can't isolate them as if one were the only one that mattered.

actions by the president and the senate were both basically illegal and both basically unnecessary. right and wrong is a different question, because not all justifications are equal. the senate has essentially cried wolf on every other nomination this president has ever made, so even if this particular obstruction should in theory be 100% justified, they have no ethical leg left to stand on. the president has made relatively few nominations, and even fewer recess appointments, and had thus far (to the consternation of his political base) used his powers sparingly in support of his nominees. so even if this is the worst, most illegal and most unnecessary nomination ever, he is still more justified in making it than the senate is in obstructing it.

First dsws and now you..

I said "Regardless of the specifics of the CFPB,....

The CFPB and the validity or non-validity of the agency is NOT the point of this discussion...

The point of this discussion is does Obama have the right to ignore the law (in the case of the WPA) and ignore established precedent (in the case of the "Recess Appointment") and do whatever the hell he wants...

I say "NO"..

You say "YES"...

If it were a GOP President, you would THEN say "NO"...

Of course, MY answer would be the same...

That's this entire discussion minus all the extraneous BS..

Michale

I suspect the reason you and David are trying to do this is because you don't have a leg to stand on arguing Obama's actions..

This is supported by the fact that ya'all refuse to address the past history of Obama's actions in this regard...

Let me make it easy for ya'all...

The CFPB is better than frozen pizza!! It's the greatest thing since skimmed milk!! I LOVE the CFPB and, if it were a person, I would want to carry it's child!!!

NOW... Does the fact that the CFPB is the greatest achievement in the whole wide universe justify Obama ignoring established precedent and doing a "Recess Appointment" when the Senate is not in Recess??

I say "NO"....

You, obviously, disagree....

That's pretty much the status of this debate...

I just can't wait until we have a GOP president that pulls the same kind of crap... I get to watch ya'all backpedal... :D

Michale

false. even something as extreme as torturing alleged terrorists is subject to degrees of wrongness and mitigating factors, such as whether or not they're already proven to be a terrorist, whether or not there's suspicion of a plot to blow something up, how severe the torture is, etc. etc. - of course, something that extreme may be considered wrong if it's done even once, but the more you do it, the worse it is, still applies.

Now in YOUR example, you are talking about a chemical process that has absoutly NOTHING to do with the idea of obstructionism...

on the scale of lame counter-arguments, that's in the high 90th percentile. i thought beer would be a more fun example, but there are thousands of comparable examples that don't involve chemical processes. if you don't do your homework once or twice because your teachers gave you more than you could handle, it probably won't hurt anyone and is easily forgivable. if you never do your homework, it'll have severe academic consequences. if you play computer games dawn to dusk five days a year, no harm done. if you do it five days a week, you get fired and lose your house. with few exceptions, the principle of moderation applies to just about everything. are you arguing this issue sincerely, or just being contrarian for its own sake?

Regardless of the specifics of the CFPB, it still doesn't change the fact that everything I said in #89, #90, #92, #93 and #95 is dead on ballz accurate...

it's completely inappropriate to disregard the specifics, so the remainder of the statement can be safely disregarded.

Isn't that possible???

Yea, I know.. I know.. I am definitely not the Poster Child for such sentiment...

But hay.. SOMEONE has to make the argument..

Might as well be me... :D

Michale

As opposed to the OTHER kind of economics that Democrats prefer and have been soooooo successful in the last 3 years??? :D

So they have to invent reasons to not like the CFPB. Cue the marketing department. This is where you get things like "it's not accountable" (even though accountability is built into the law, see link previously provided).

I did read your link and IF (real big IF) it's accurate, I do agree with your assessment.

However, my agreement on accountability doesn't change the argument a bit...

All the arguments I've seen against the CFPB fall into this category of marketing. The real reason Republicans don't want the CFPB is because the lobbyists hate it (Payday cash lenders for one).

As opposed to DEMOCRAT lobbyists who LOVE the things Democrats do.. :D

But does that sound good to the American people? Not so much.

You know, these same kind of DEMONIZATION and divisive arguments were used against Insurance companies during CrapCare...

CrapCare was supposed to save us all from the evil insurance companies..

Did it work out that way???

As you say.... "not so much"....

So why do you believe that this CFPB is going to be any different than another regulatory failure by the Obama Administration??

Regardless of the specifics of the CFPB, it still doesn't change the fact that everything I said in #89, #90, #92, #93 and #95 is dead on ballz accurate...

Michale

You're so silly. Any time anyone has an objection, you try to turn it into a straw man.

Republicans are against the CFPB because they believe in supply side economics. This is the view that government should only help producers and not consumers. They believe in this view because it is the view of those who supported their election. It is how big business gets big handouts.

Now Republicans can't say this very loudly right now because supply side economics and it's step child deregulation are not very popular (see Wall Street crash).

So they have to invent reasons to not like the CFPB. Cue the marketing department. This is where you get things like "it's not accountable" (even though accountability is built into the law, see link previously provided).

All the arguments I've seen against the CFPB fall into this category of marketing. The real reason Republicans don't want the CFPB is because the lobbyists hate it (Payday cash lenders for one).

But does that sound good to the American people? Not so much.

-David

See #93

let's put this in terms you might more easily understand. it's like beer. if you have three beers it's not the same as having fifteen. if you have five beers without any food, it's not the same as having them with a meal or after. if you have five beers after dinner on a friday night when you can sleep late saturday, it's NOT the same as having twelve beers with no food when you're supposed to be the designated driver. there's no way in hades it's okay to reduce the argument to beer being good or bad.

Reminds me of the time I was in a religious debate with a guy over the existence of god...

He said take a box filled with a thousand watches all dissassembled to their most minute component.. Then shake the box around over and over and over.. What are the chances that a fully assembled watch will happen? He said that, because that is impossible, it's "proof" that god had a hand in the creation of life...

I had to mull that over, but the answer became clear. With his thousand watches example, he was talking about a MECHANICAL process... A process that requires exacting measurments and everything just so...

When it comes to the formation of life, we're talking about a CHEMICAL process... A process where minute changes in just about everything can produce surprising, yet utterly coincidental, results..

Now in YOUR example, you are talking about a chemical process that has absoutly NOTHING to do with the idea of obstructionism...

In YOUR example, numbers matter..

In MY previous example of torturing terrorists, numbers DO not matter. It would be your opinion that torturing ONE terrorist is as wrong as torturing a thousand terrorists.. True??

So, basically, the disagreement here (vis a vis) obstructionism is that YOU claim that numbers DO matter in obstructionism.. That a LITTLE obstructionism is OK...

MY claim is that if obstructionism is bad for ONE Party that does it a lot, it's also bad for the OTHER Party that doesn't do it as much..

I also remind you of my argument that, if the Democrats could be as organized as Republicans when it comes to obstructionism, then the Democrats would ALSO do it as much as Republicans do..

In other words, the simple fact that Democrats do it less is NOT because of some conscious desire to limit gridlock, but rather because they really REALLY suck at it... :D

Michale

The numbers don't matter. Obstructionism is either OK or it's not OK...

michale,

that's insane, of course the numbers matter, and timing, and rationale. vietnam was obstructed to make the executive enforce a law (case-church amendment), NOT to nullify a law. the reductive argument is completely inappropriate here.

let's put this in terms you might more easily understand. it's like beer. if you have three beers it's not the same as having fifteen. if you have five beers without any food, it's not the same as having them with a meal or after. if you have five beers after dinner on a friday night when you can sleep late saturday, it's NOT the same as having twelve beers with no food when you're supposed to be the designated driver. there's no way in hades it's okay to reduce the argument to beer being good or bad.

Until that time, it's nothing but same ol' same ol' partisan politics games..

Which shouldn't be confused with partisan Reindeer games.. :D

Michale

OK.. NOW we're getting somewhere...

So, it's your opinion that obstructionism in and of itself, is not the problem here...

Republicans' gratuitous obstructionism is a minor part of what's evil about them.

And THERE it is....

Republicans are "evil"....

Therefore, when Republicans use obstruction, it's "evil"..

Conversely, when Democrats use obstruction, it's "good"...

And therein lies the crux of my entire argument.

It's all about political and ideological bias. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with what is really right and what is really wrong.

"THEY think different than we do, so THEY are evil and WE are good"

THAT is what it is all about..

And THAT is what is wrong with this country today...

THAT was something Obama promised to change...

Instead he has made it twenty times worse...

I know, I know..

It's all the Republicans fault.

Democrats are pure as the driven snow... :^/

Michale

False dichotomy. Obstructionism is normally not as good as negotiation, but some things deserve to be obstructed. The filibuster should be fixed, not eliminated. Republicans' gratuitous obstructionism is a minor part of what's evil about them.

Anyone want to discuss Obama's ignoring the War Powers Act??

Again, I have to wonder how the Left would react if Bush had forced a "Recess Appointment" when the Senate wasn't in Recess. I have to wonder how the Left would react if Bush ignored the War Powers Act with the excuse, "...it's not a war, it's a kinetic military action..."

Can you imagine the outcry from the Left???

But Obama gets a pass.....

Strange how that is, eh?? :D

Michale

the vietnam conflict was already going on for eight years prior to congress withholding funds, and involved passage of the case-church amendment. to be comparable to today's conflict, t

Do you see what you are doing here???

I mention that obstructionism is obstructionism and you say, "Well, it's not the same because Republicans do it more than Democrats"...

I mention the Vietnam War as an example of Democrats trying to end run around an already approved law and you bring up the time frame..

You are mitigating up the wazoo....

The numbers don't matter. Obstructionism is either OK or it's not OK...

The time frame doesn't matter. It's either OK to use political "gimmicks" to thwart an approved law or it's not....

David,

Really? You're comparing consumer protection with anti-sedition?

Puh-leez.

No, I am not comparing the agencies..

I am comparing the two Partys and their *reaction* to the agencies..

Wouldn't Democrats use every tool in their arsenal to prevent such an agency from becoming operational???

The answer is, OF COURSE they would.... Democrats would do exactly what the Republicans are doing to prevent the Anti Sedition agency from coming online...

You claim to not be against the CFPB, just some parts of the law. But you don't really know what those are. So you're out trying to figure out what portions of it you're against.

*I* am not against or for ANYTHING about the CFPB...

I am simply trying to show you that this is nothing but politics as usual..

That, given the proper incentive, Democrats would act JUST like Republicans are acting...

That Democrats are not the "pure as the driven snow" Party you want me to believe it is..

It sure looks to me like the cart before the horse - you're against the CFPB and are just trying to find ways to justify it without saying you're against consumer protection.

First off, *I* haven't said I am against the CFPB..

We're discussing the GOP's reaction to the CFPB and the Democrats reaction to the GOP's reaction...

I have stated, however, that the ONLY thing we have to go on, insofar as the effectiveness of the CFPB is Obama's lofty words...

And, as has been amply proven, Obama's lofty words have a tendency to come crashing down once the rubber hits the road...

Let's be honest. That is what is going on here. You can pretend that Republicans care about accountability. But long before they found that argument, they were trying to find a way to block the CFPB.

WHY!!????

That's been my whole point...

WHY are the GOP trying to block the CFPB..

Do you even care WHY??? Or do you simply believe that, 'It's the GOP, so it's bad, regardless of why'...

I have given you an agency that has all the earmarks, all the "specs" of the CFPB... And I have amply proven that, if THAT agency was the agency we are talking about instead of the CFPB, then Democrats would be reacting EXACTLY like the Republicans are..

True or False???

This entire debate hasn't been about the CFPB at all...

It's about the GOP's reaction to the CFPB and the Democrat's reaction to the GOP's reaction..

If the Republicans are being that adamant about the CFPB, then I think it would behoove us to all wonder why...

Or is it your view that the GOP is being obstructionist over the CFPB because they are unpatriotic and want to screw over each and every American and want to hurt this country??

That's Obama's opinion, so if that is yours as well, I guess your in... ahem... "good" company.. :^/

Michale.....

Really? You're comparing consumer protection with anti-sedition?

Puh-leez.

Ok. Before you fall for any of that crap about accountability, read how the CFPB is accountable.

http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Pages/Setting-the-Record-Straight-on-CFPB-Accountability.aspx

But let me ask another question. How come you've made up your mind without knowing what your argument is going to be?

You claim to not be against the CFPB, just some parts of the law. But you don't really know what those are. So you're out trying to figure out what portions of it you're against.

How does this work?

It sure looks to me like the cart before the horse - you're against the CFPB and are just trying to find ways to justify it without saying you're against consumer protection.

Your going to have a hard time convincing me that conservatives are somehow "pro consumer" when their entire philosophy is anti-consumer. They're against regulations which protect consumers. They're against laws that protect consumers. This is their definition of supply side economics.

Which is why you see them fumbling around with different arguments to try and justify their agenda. They start with what they want, no CFPB. And then try to find ways to justify it.

Let's be honest. That is what is going on here. You can pretend that Republicans care about accountability. But long before they found that argument, they were trying to find a way to block the CFPB.

-David

Re. Michale[70] & Chris[81]

Forget about talk show transcripts. If you want to know what the Republicans really think about the CFPB, then all you have to do is go watch the confirmation hearing for Cordray.

I don't have a link for you but you can find it in the C-SPAN video library.

Suffice to say that Chris is right, as per usual. But, I know you already know that. :)

OK, let me give you an alternate scenario...

During the Bush years, circa 2003-2005..... Republicans want to create an agency that has ONE person at the top calling the shots. This person is accountable to absolutely NO ONE...

This agency has a budget of 500 million dollars which is also completely unaccountable to absolutely NO one..

Further, there are absolutely NO checks and balances to this agency.. It has sole and supreme authority, it's decisions are final and there are absolutely NO appeals...

Finally, this agency operates without ANY transparency and oversight whatsoever...

Republicans pass the law creating this agency because they have control of both Houses of Congress. This law is passed with great and hysterical opposition from Democrats...

The Director of this agency must be confirmed by the Senate before he can assume his duties...

The new agency???

Department of Anti-Sedition. It's sole function is to determine who are loyal Americans and who are not...

Now are you going to tell me that Democrats will simply ignore the grave threat that this new agency represents and confirm President Bush's nominee for this department, Bernard Kerik??

Or is it more likely that Democrats will use every possible obstructionist tool in their arsenal to prevent this heinous and despicable agency from getting off the ground??

You tell me... :D

Michale

http://www.noozhawk.com/article/122711_tom_donohue_unaccountable_cfpb

Yer right..

It IS a good argument... :D

Michale

Awwwwww, I gotta read Fox News!!!

That sux!!! :D

Or, perhaps, Google "CFPB" and "congressional oversight" as a lot of their argument hinged on the lack of Congress' ability to "oversee" (read: gut and hamstring) the new agency. Also, maybe Google "unaccountable" or "power" with that... just a guess.

The only reason I wanted your links was so I could read exactly what you read.. That way, we're not talking about two different reports but rather able to derive our respective opinions from the same facts...

Joshua,

i think we need an independent arbiter to settle who won that bet. i bet that they'd still be there and active at new years, and they were. you bet that they'd be gone and disbanded. they were forcibly removed, but they didn't leave and haven't disappeared.

Yes, you could LOOK and probably find a local report here and there..

But my position was the the Oowzers (rhymes with "luzers") would be gone from the national scene by New Years..

As I didn't make that clear I would accept CW's take on things... :D

It's not as if I ain't use to losing quatloos! :D

the vietnam conflict was already going on for eight years prior to congress withholding funds, and involved passage of the case-church amendment. to be comparable to today's conflict, the congress would have had to stop the gulf of tonkin resolution from being enforced in the first place. for today's congress to be comparable to vietnam, they would have to first pass an amendment to dodd-frank, which they haven't.

While the tit for tat then may not be identical to the here and now, you have to admit.... Democrats in Congress tried an end run around established law... Much like Republicans are doing (or, more accurately, TRIED to do) with the CPFB)

however, i think it's to soon to make assumptions as to what that reason is.

Based on the actions before and after, it's clear what Obama's reasons were...

This was a bold move, and should be seen as the president hauling off and smacking the Republican Party upside the head... and then taunting: "What are you going to do about it, huh?"
-Chris Weigant, FTP, 6 Jan 2012

:D

Michale

http://www.noozhawk.com/article/122711_tom_donohue_unaccountable_cfpb

i think we need an independent arbiter to settle who won that bet. i bet that they'd still be there and active at new years, and they were. you bet that they'd be gone and disbanded. they were forcibly removed, but they didn't leave and haven't disappeared.

Democrats withheld funds, just like the GOP withheld confirmation...

the vietnam conflict was already going on for eight years prior to congress withholding funds, and involved passage of the case-church amendment. to be comparable to today's conflict, the congress would have had to stop the gulf of tonkin resolution from being enforced in the first place. for today's congress to be comparable to vietnam, they would have to first pass an amendment to dodd-frank, which they haven't.

Basically ya'alls argument here is two fold..
1. The GOP is obstructing the agenda of the Democratic Party..
2. The GOP is so damn good at obstructing the agenda of the Democratic Party.

incorrect. my argument has nothing to do with which agenda is being obstructed, it has to do with three important differences:

1. the difference between before and after
2. the difference between a lot and a little
3. the difference between legislative and executive powers

congress may obstruct a law before it's passed, not after. once it's been sent to the president to sign, enforcement is out of their hands. it's perfectly fine to obstruct a nominee, but it's not okay to use the blanket obstruction of all nominees to prevent a law from being executed.

Again, that the IDEA behind the agency...
But why on earth would you believe that's how it's going to be??

one way or the other, we're obligated to find out. the agency is out of the senate's hands. it's the law, and except for passing amendments to it, congress has no business using other means to try to prevent the president from following it.

Now, if you are going to make the argument that "a little" obstructionism is OK, then who gets to define "a little".. The Democrats???

nobody can define a lot and a little unilaterally, but there are percentiles that can provide pretty objective measurements and gauge deviation from the norm. we have 44 presidents and 112 congresses to compare, to determine how many nominees must be held up to constitute "a lot" or how many recess appointments are "a little."

Established Precedence (helped established by the Obama Administration) was that, when these Pro Forma sessions are going on, the Senate is not in recess...

okay, so the senate broke the statutory law by refusing to let a director be appointed, and the president broke the common-law by appointing a director when the senate were legally (if not physically) in session.

deductively, it must be true that obama must wants courts to sort it out for a reason. however, i think it's to soon to make assumptions as to what that reason is.

I didn't read the GOP's objections, I heard them on political (teevee) chat shows, so I don't have a link handy. I would suggest going back to the Sunday after it happened, and reading the transcripts of (say) Fox News Sunday. You'll probably find them there.

Or, perhaps, Google "CFPB" and "congressional oversight" as a lot of their argument hinged on the lack of Congress' ability to "oversee" (read: gut and hamstring) the new agency. Also, maybe Google "unaccountable" or "power" with that... just a guess.

-CW

Well for starters, both of his picks to head the agency have been successful consumer advocates.

Warren, you know. Cordray, as attorney general in Ohio.

I am still wanting to read the GOP's complaints, not ya'alls interpretation of the GOP's complaints.

CW hit it pretty much on the mark. They think it will be too powerful and want to replace the single director with a board. If you don't believe us, ask some Republicans.

http://blog.al.com/sweethome/2012/01/alabama_republicans_richard_sh.html

What Shelby and Bachus say is pretty much the Republican line. "Too powerful" in Republican language typically means not letting companies do whatever they want.

How come you never hear Republicans talking about how Wall Street or lobbying organizations are "too powerful"?

-David

Can't argue with that..

It's senseless to negotiate with Democrats...

Look how well it worked out for the GOP with CrapCare??

So much for "compromise" eh??

Michale

Only in this case, they can't. Negotiating with Democrats would be like having a boxing match with a spoonful of jelly. You can pound on the smear all you want, but it's just not a boxing match.

Always a strong point....

Or is it?

America And The Solitude Of The Syrians
Deep down, the Obama administration seems to believe that Assad's tyranny is preferable to the opposition.

Hafez al-Assad bequeathed power to his son, Bashar. Now Bashar, in turn, has a son named Hafez. From this bondage, the Syrian people are determined to release themselves. As of now, they are on their own.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203462304577139434278336136.html

{{{chiiirrrrrpppppp}}}} {{{chiiiiiirrrrrrrrppppp}}}

I'm just sayin'....

Michale

Not having a quorum does not a recess make...

You said it yourself. The Senate makes the Senate's rules.

Senate Democrats decided to do these Pro Forma sessions...

Established Precedence (helped established by the Obama Administration) was that, when these Pro Forma sessions are going on, the Senate is not in recess..

"These are the facts. And they are undisputed."
-Captain Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

Why couldn't this have happened a couple weeks ago!! I would have gone WAY over the top of 500 posts!! :D

Michale

The GOP's "reforms" for the agency would all make it less effective or, in effect, neuter the agency.

In YOUR opinion...

I am still wanting to read the GOP's complaints, not ya'alls interpretation of the GOP's complaints..

No offence whatsoever... :D

Let's get rid of the agency that wants to make sure you conduct business honestly.

Again, that the IDEA behind the agency...

But why on earth would you believe that's how it's going to be??

Because of Obama's stellar record on follow thru??? :^/ If you believe that, I have some swampland around here I could sell you.. :D

Michale

See what CW said above.

The GOP's "reforms" for the agency would all make it less effective or, in effect, neuter the agency.

Is this any surprise? No. The GOP party is the party of supply-side economics and trickle down theory. They don't fight for consumers. They fight for handouts for businesses and this would be another one. Let's get rid of the agency that wants to make sure you conduct business honestly. Because ... let's be honest, you can make more money by sticking it to people.

Example #1: Payday lenders (a fancy name for legalized loan sharking)

Who do you think their campaign contributions are going to? My guess is any politician who is against the CPB.

-David

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/18/271075/mchenry-predatory-payday/?mobile=nc

Oops. I looked on the calendar at senate.gov, and it shows a recess. So I was thinking it was the House that's in pro-forma session. But the Senate is.

One thing that's clear is that the Senate doesn't have quorum.

Article I Section 5.

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

1. The GOP is obstructing the agenda of the Democratic Party..

2. The GOP is so damn good at obstructing the agenda of the Democratic Party.

As to the former, I really can't say I blame them. Look where the agenda of the Democratic Party has brought us.. Can you imagine how bad things would be if the Democrats were actually able to use their lock (when they had it) on Government effectively??

Apparently the majority of Americans agree with that. What other explanation is there for the Great Shellacking Of 2010??

As to the latter, what can I say?? If the Democratic Party could get their shit together, they would be a lot more effective in pushing their agenda.

Apparently they can't, so their not..

But I really can't find the outrage over the GOP obstructionism because A> it's just politics as usual and 2> obstructing the Democrat's agenda is what's best for this country.

IMNSHO of course... :D

Michale

the facts are in, michale. the law is pretty well-written as-is. when you start re-writing, it's as likely to get worse as better.

That's your opinion and I respect that.

But that still doesn't address why the GOP has a problem with it.

you lose your quatloos. speaking of which, OWS is still active, and defied the authorities to return to zucotti at new years - i believe the terms of our bet were whether or not they'd be there, and they were. ;)

Are they "occupying" Zucotti Park?? No they are not.. :D They ARE "out of there" insofar as not staying. They have to come and go like normal people...

Also, have they been in the national news?? No they have not... If you ask John Q Public about the Oowzers (rhymes with 'luzers') they would say, "Oh those malcontents?? They're history"..

So, I would say that I won the bet... :D

the democrats haven't explicitly attempted to nullify a law after the fact, except by making a new law. at least not this century.

Are you sure???? :D

Historians have directly attributed the fall of Saigon in 1975 to the cessation of American aid. Without the necessary funds, South Vietnam found it logistically and financially impossible to defeat the North Vietnamese army. Moreover, the withdrawal of aid encouraged North Vietnam to begin an effective military offensive against South Vietnam. Given the monetary and military investment in Vietnam, former Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage compared the American withdrawal to “a pregnant lady, abandoned by her lover to face her fate.” 2 Historian Lewis Fanning went so far as to say that “it was not the Hanoi communists who won the war, but rather the American Congress that lost it.” 3
http://hnn.us/articles/31400.html#_ftn1

Democrats withheld funds, just like the GOP withheld confirmation...

And since you yourself used the example of the Iraq war, then defunding the Vietnam War is exactly the same..

yes. calling this "political obstruction" is like calling the south pole "a little chilly." democrats used the pro-forma session tactic as a senate majority, after 6 years and 171 recess appointments. republicans obtained it as a senate minority, after 2 years and 29 recess appointments.

So?? Just because the GOP can control their Party better, that makes it a crime???

If obstructionism is wrong, then it's wrong whether it's done one time or a thousand times..

Now, if you are going to make the argument that "a little" obstructionism is OK, then who gets to define "a little".. The Democrats???

"How many people does it take, Admiral, before it becomes wrong? Hmm? A thousand, fifty thousand, a million? How many people does it take, Admiral? "
-Captain Jean Luc Picard, STAR TREK 9 INSURRECTION

Basically, you want to make the claim that obstructionism is OK as long as it's Democrats who are doing the obstruction.. If Democrats had the Party discipline to do the kind of Obstruction that the GOP does, ya'all would be fine with it..

It's not a question of numbers. It's a question of ideology...

Joshua & CW

Could you link me to the GOP's arguments on the CFPB? This way, we are talking about the same thing..

No offense, but I want to read first hand their claims...

Michale

OK, I'll answer the rest of these tomorrow, but in response to your question, the things I heard GOPers complaining about were: the size of the CFPB budget, the fact that it was run by one man instead of a committee, and the fact that its budget cannot be touched by Congress.

These were stalking horses. The budget was less than a billion dollars, from what I recall, which is freakin' CHUMP change in DC, and for the job they're supposed to do. The "one man" thing was Republicans living in fear that they could not pack the committee with people they had bought and paid for. The budget thing was the most transparent, because the Republicans in Congress wanted to just zero out their budget -- another way of killing the agency completely.

But this was the entire POINT -- the office was set up to be outside of politics (as watchdogs often are), and the Republicans are complaining because they cannot now inject politics back into the process. Every single one of their objections was a thinly-veiled attempt to destroy the agency completely by other means, or to eviscerate its independence. It is purely sore-loserdom, plain and simple.

Anyway, more tomorrow, just had to say that.

-CW

the facts are in, michale. the law is pretty well-written as-is. when you start re-writing, it's as likely to get worse as better.

Do ANY of you have ANY idea what the GOP's objections were to the law??
I bet ya don't.... :D

you lose your quatloos. speaking of which, OWS is still active, and defied the authorities to return to zucotti at new years - i believe the terms of our bet were whether or not they'd be there, and they were. ;)

as to GOP objections, do you want me to repeat what they said? i believe the real reason is because they don't want their biggest campaign contributors to be investigated for crimes. the latest excuse is because it allegedly steps on the toes of other agencies like the FTC, SEC, etc. the catch-phrase is "accountability," which basically means they want to give other agencies power over it. (i.e. less power to investigate wealthy campaign donors). another objection was that it's too limited in scope to banks, but any of these could be addressed with new legislation after the bureau is up and running.

How many times Democrats have filibustered and did "Pro Forma" sessions to prevent Republicans from pursuing their agenda...

there's a difference between an agenda and a law. the democrats haven't explicitly attempted to nullify a law after the fact, except by making a new law. at least not this century.

So, who is in the wrong here???

The GOP??? Whose only crime is political obstruction

yes. calling this "political obstruction" is like calling the south pole "a little chilly." democrats used the pro-forma session tactic as a senate majority, after 6 years and 171 recess appointments. republicans obtained it as a senate minority, after 2 years and 29 recess appointments.

if democrats had used this power from the minority position in 2003 to prevent the enforcement of the iraq resolution, bush would have been legally justified in challenging it (although going to war in iraq was still a bad decision).

As we enter the presidential election year of 2012, what potential news event do you fear the most?

North Korea will attack South Korea 4%

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/01/09/poll-americans-2-1-fear-obamas-reelection

Ya see!?? It's not just me..... :D

Michale

you'd rather the law be so marked up as to be nearly useless like the ACA?

Again, assumes facts not in evidence..

Do ANY of you have ANY idea what the GOP's objections were to the law??

I bet ya don't.... :D

anyhow, the time for filibuster and compromise on a law is BEFORE it gets passed, not after.

Agreed..

Now sit there and tell me that the Democrats have always obeyed that "rule" too....

How many times Democrats have filibustered and did "Pro Forma" sessions to prevent Republicans from pursuing their agenda...

You see the point??

Ya'all bitch and whine about the GOP does this or the GOP does that, completely oblivious to the fact that the Democrats did this and the Democrats did that...

But one thing the GOP *HASN'T* done is ignore the War Powers Act..

One thing the GOP *HASN'T* done is ignore established precedence with regards to Senate Recess and Recess Appointments...

So, who is in the wrong here???

The GOP??? Whose only crime is political obstruction performed and semi-perfected by Democrats??

Or Democrats?? Who have completely ignored the law and established precedence???

If one looks at things logically and objectively w/o ANY partisan bent, the answer is clear...

Michale

you'd rather the law be so marked up as to be nearly useless like the ACA? anyhow, the time for filibuster and compromise on a law is BEFORE it gets passed, not after. once the law is passed and signed, the horse has left the barn and it's supposed to be the purview of the executive branch. requiring a compromise on it at this point is just sour grapes.

michale,

you have this disturbing habit of dealing in absolutes. either-or, right or wrong, the antichrist or the second coming. absolutes do exist, but certainly not in every case, and absolutely not in this case. obama's been a mediocre president at a difficult time. we were hoping for greatness, but i'm not willing to call him a fraud for it, at least no more than any other politician in washington.

unlike the watered-down healthcare reform, the CFPB is a well-conceived program, and in its current form there is no way it won't help at least some people. so sure, the way the president went about appointing these nominees was somewhat wrong, but certainly not as wrong as failing to appoint them at all.

Exactly..

They weren't against the law..

They were against the law as the Democrats wrote it..

So much for "compromise", eh??

as CW pointed out last post, recess is not defined in the constitution. the president does have some constitutional authority over it though, specifically "he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper." who knows why obama didn't, but he certainly can if he chooses.

Obama DIDN'T adjourn it, did he??

Established precedent stated that the Senate was NOT in recess..

Precedent, I might add, that the Democrats used to THEIR advantage during the Bush years...

FACT 1
The President didn't adjourn the Senate.

FACT 2
The Senate did not recess.

Ergo, the Senate was NOT in recess and no amount of political spin or skullduggery can make the claim that it was....

Obama did not make a "Recess Appointment"...

No way, no how....

These are the facts... It's really THAT simple...

Michale

Assumes facts not in evidence.

They signed a letter saying they wouldn't allow it to function. i think that's sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that they want to prevent the law from being executed as written in the statute.

No, the Senate says when the Senate is in recess. Not the President.

as CW pointed out last post, recess is not defined in the constitution. the president does have some constitutional authority over it though, specifically "he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper." who knows why obama didn't, but he certainly can if he chooses.

Ya'all are never going to concede that Obama did something wrong and I am never going to concede that Obama is the second coming....

So, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on President Obama.... :D

Michale