Ricardo is a Useful Idiot
This is not a dig at your intelligence, in fact the ranks of Useful Idiots are overpopulated by people who consider themselves to be part of the intelligentsia.
Believers (misguided or otherwise) do not swing elections. The election of Obama was due in large part to the votes of white, 'independents.' The very same people he is and has been losing in droves. These 'independents' took everything the main stream media fed them last year, hook line and sinker.
They have been jarred out of their trances and are starting to pay attention, probably for the first time in their lives (doesn't bode well for candidates dependent upon the mainstream media as part of their campaign efforts)
A monger (who clearly does not rise to the ranks of the intelligentsia) made this observation back in July:
[QUOTE]That said, America (our America) is noticing. The pendulum has swung and will cut very deep on its rebound.[/QUOTE]
Esteemed Posters - The line and crossing it
My posts over the past weeks have elicited an interesting array of comments. I now wonder if the title of the forum would be more accurately titled "American Politics As Practiced during the Obama Administration - Submit pro-Administration Views At Your Own Risk."
One faction of respected Forum members including Jackson, Sidney, Alamo and a few others opines that:
1. My respect for the current President of the United States who was elected by a large majority of its citizens in a free election is misplaced as for some reason I don't recognize the fact that he is a "criminal" or "socialist" who is in the process of destroying America or worse.
2. My economic views - despite my professional training, work experience in government, business, consulting and writing, along with the concurrence of the highly-regarded business leaders and the majority of respected economists across the globe - are bogus and reflect a basic ignorance of capitalism.
3. My attempts at providing AP members for their consideration an alternate point of view generally supportive of the new President and of what is going on back in the states including analysis, factual information and ideas are mostly worthy of contempt.
4. I am seriously misguided because I don't view government as evil or public servants as lower life forms who all just feed at the public trough.
5. My "left slanted" views are "crap" based on some form of "indoctrination."
While another faction, which doesn't share the views expressed by my more frequent detractors, have offered public and private encouragement. They say it is about time someone on the forum with a brain, balls and actual knowledge is giving the President's critics a run for their money. I am advised to "hang in there."
What's a thoughtful person to do?
Am I the guilty party who went over the line? Did I err in taking offense at Alamo's claim that ""government at every level is a cancer and if you let it grow it will kill the patient!"
In the light of day this morning I think I would have been wiser to ignore his post. Rereading it I can see its self-contained fallacy needed no amplification from me? I never considered perhaps he was referring exclusively to the Argentine government. No argument there!
Still, after a few glasses of Pinot Noir last night, understandably, I did find a bit offensive, his inference that my work in public service and the good, hard working, dedicated people I knew and know in government actually posed an existential threat to the survival of society as we were spreading a "cancer."
Yet, despite our back and forty, I still think my adversaries here are descent guys and we all share much of what is enjoyable as we experience the BA experience.
I would bet if Jackson started a forum "Argentine Politics during the Kirchner Administration" we would be falling all over ourselves in agreement - that is before the site got closed down!
Bankruptcy is a good starting place!
Not sure which law you're speaking about Sydney. Is going bankrupt illegal in the USA? Do you mean personally bankrupt, the country, or some other entity?
If he's breaking laws, why doesn't someone take him to court?
Have a good trip, but hurry back, there are people here waiting for an answer!
The Constitution, laws, Obama, Jackson and Sidney
Jackson:
I just came from a great concert by the brilliant American jazz pianist, Brad Meldhau, at the Gran Rex and decided to see what's shaking on AP. I see things are SOP on the great pages.
After I read your, Steve's, Stan's and Schmoj's comments, out of respect for the encouragement I have received from numerous fellow AP posters, I offer comment on the on-going colloquy.
Perhaps we should give Sidney the opportunity to complete his travels and then provide his own explanation of his claim that Obama is a "serious violator of US laws" unless he has appointed you his spokesman. (I would prefer Dana Perino, W's former flack. She is blonder, more slippery and hotter)
In any case your initial tentative defense of him includes a creative and somewhat novel take on constitutional law. I regret to observe your understanding of it is rather shaky.
In your parlance, a President can possibly violate the US Constitution by overstepping his constitutional authority, however "it's not a violation of the Constitution until the Supreme Court makes a specific ruling."
WRONG!
If a President oversteps his constitutional authority, he (or someday she) has violated the law. If a Presidential act ends up before the court on a claim that it violated the constitution and the court finds it didn't, obviously, the President is home free. However, should SCOTUS rule otherwise, first the President must cease and desist from continuing to violate the constitution and the law. Then as regards to any prosecution of a Presidential crime, it is up to the Justice Department to proceed with a criminal case if it deems it is warranted and / or for the Congress to decide whether to proceed with impeachment proceedings if it deems the President's conduct warrants removal from office.
You then state some undefined Presidential behavior: "is not a criminal act until the Congress passes a law that makes it one, and even then said newly-enacted law would not be retroactive to prior acts."
AGAIN WRONG!
In truth, other than having the process of law-making backwards, I have no fucking idea what you are talking about with this statement and my guess is neither do you.
As for the correct process of making law (remember I worked as a senior aide in the United States Senate for four years) when Congress passes a law and the President signs it, if it includes provisions that require adherence to specific actions or behavior, any acts in violation of such provisions by a President or anyone else is illegal and subject to prosecution and punishment.
I hope this clarifies your misconceptions.
In our lifetime, only one President ever claimed that if the President does something, just because he is President it is legal. That was Tricky Dick Nixon who made that statement to an incredulous David Frost in the famous TV interviews. At the time he was ex-President Nixon and his claim, which was absurd on its face, helped turn him from a national embarrassment to an international figure of public ridicule.
(We know Sidney is on a tear about Presidents with dictatorial ambitions. Maybe we should look out for a copy of the famous bumper sticker to get him as a gift that said "Nixon's the One!")
More recently, Bush II had his politically-appointed lawyers write justifications for a range of actions related to Iraq, the war on terror, torture, enhanced interrogation, etc. His legal minions claimed that the "commander-in-chief" clause in the constitution gave the executive branch authority when the nation was at war to bypass existing international treaties (considered binding in the constitution) as well as other domestic statutes. Many of those justifications have been challenged in court and in the vast majority of decisions, courts up to and including the Supreme Court (with many Republican-appointed judges concurring) have turned aside the claims of the Bush lawyers. Since taking office, the Obama Administration has rejected both the Bush practices and the rationales of extra-constitutional prerogatives.
But enough of Professor Rust on constitutional law, let's just wait until Sidney completes his travel and makes his case.
I know many of us will await with interest to see if Sidney has any new bombshells to present with credible and compelling evidence or even a "smoking gun" that supports his claim.
I remain dubious, given my prior observation that if there was anything to such claims, the AG Eric Holder would already be inundated with cases brought by aggrieved victims of the dastardly deeds of Obama's constitution busters. Also, I repeat, as far as I know no such cases are awaiting adjudication anywhere in the US. Finally, so far Dicky Cheney has not tried to gain access to the White House to perform a citizen's arrest!
However, should Sidney just regurgitate the list from his earlier post, that he may have innocently copied from Fox or one the right-wing blogs, with bullet points on all the heinous things Obama has done that are supposedly not enumerated in the constitution, I will again refer you to my earlier response.
There, I briefly explained the established concept of "implied powers" which dates back to the earliest days of the Republic and validates Obama's actions (virtually all of which mirror similar acts of past presidents that were at the time accepted as fully consistent with the constitution)
Given the age, educational and wordly profiles AP kin folk, I would hope we are beyond the silliness of birthers, death panels, etc. And these pages don't begin to attract the tin foil cap crowd and we don't keep reading the same old same old.
Jackson, should you need further clarification on any constitutional or legislative niceties, don't hesitate to forward your inquiry.
Stan - Kudos - Good post - even with some arguable points!
Stan,
Its a pleasure to read a post that shows a good understanding of how government works, written in clear, emotion-free language. What you write sets up the opportunity of a rational back and forth, rather than the emotional rants and definitively stated untruths that too often show up on posts like AP. I enjoy reasoned debate and detest the mindless name calling that we see too much of (although sometimes I can't help myself and I sink to the level of the attack squad and then seek redemption!
First, you will get no argument from me that our law books are bloated with silly, unenforceable, outdated, unfair and even dangerous laws. Like most AP members I refer to the former homeland as "sex prison." As we know, in most states it is best not to ask: "Anyone for a little recreational sodomy?"
I take mild exception to your blanket statement that "Presidents break laws all the time. All of them." You do buttress your opinion with some pretty good analysis and fair, if not necessarily flawless, logic. Kudos.
Maybe members of the Obama team have already broken certain laws and maybe some more will at some time in the future. Time will tell.
However, the posts on this issue were started when Sidney made some specific charges that Obama was a serial violator of the US Constitution. Then I refuted those charges and Jackson came to Sidney's defense and I responded to him.
I agree with you that these debates would be easier "if laws were like mathematical equations, but they're not" and that "If the legislature knew what it meant, it would have said so." Your point was a daily concern when I worked in Washington for Senator Inouye in the 1970s.
Language is fungible, which is why strict constructionists arguments over the intent of the Founding Fathers can get bizarre. As you state, "Each executive branch has been hauled into court hundreds of times by thousands of litigants during the tenure of each President for the past 200 years."
Obama's turn may be right around the corner, but we haven't turned that corner yet. Until we do and some court issues a decision with a ruling to that end the claims made by Sidney hold no water.
Another complication (thank you Founding Fathers) is that the constitution gives the President the "implied power" to ignore the full and / or precise letter of the laws as passed by Congress. There is a long history of Presidential "signing statements" going back to James Monroe, where the President signs legislation sent by Congress into law and addends a written statement detailing certain provisions that will not be executed, along with an explanation.
In essence the President declares which provisions will not be enforced. One could argue the President's actions will be breaking the law by omission. But that is not the case, as the courts have sanctioned these statements and the resulting executive inaction, as an inherent power of the President. (I will not address whether W abused this power during his eight years, only to note he signed far more statements than any predecessor)
I would identify another serious distinction in law that is pertinent to your discussion. It is whether and when the executive branch breaks the law by commission. As you know in criminal law an essential element is intent and that is another condition that would apply as well should a President or an appointee willfully and knowingly break the law.
You ask - "When does something become a President's direct policy for which which he is responsible." I am sure you remember Truman had a sign on his desk: "The Buck Stops Here." As for Bush II's, the lack of such as sign didn't absolve him of responsibility for the actions of his government. My guess is there was an invisible sign that said "The Buck Stops There" with a sign pointing toward Cheney's office.
I noted that the controversial memos were written by "politically appointed lawyers" which prompted your question, "which ones aren't?" There are thousands of professional career DOJ lawyers who do not serve "at the pleasure of the President." They are hired through a rigorous non-partisan selection process that precludes politics as a consideration. They can only be fired for cause after a semi-judicial hearing.
The DOJ since its early days was designed to be a politics-free zone where the law was supreme. There are pages upon pages of internal work rules in the DOJ to assure that is how the place functions. No one assumes perfection in the matter, but fortunately throughout history most administrations did a pretty good job.
(Two documented exceptions were Nixon and W. To wit, as a raft of White House and AG office emails document, the Bush DOJ did illegally introduce politics into the career lawyers selection process, as well as into US attorney firing and replacements. But thats a whole other discussion.
When the controversial Bush war and torture debates were under way, the career DOJ lawyers refused to write the opinions the White House wanted. In fact, they wrote counter opinions for the record that detailed why what was being proposed was illegal, but they were ignored. In at least one case the Bush appointees destroyed the paper trail, so it couldn't be subpoenaed in a future legal challenge. Of course, the authors kept copies!
That sequence of events certainly raises your question "are we talking about intentionally disregarding the law -- knowing that your actions violate the law but doing something anyway -- rather than a legitimate disagreement about how to enforce "the law"?
On a less consequential item. We both know Obama will sneak out on to the Truman balcony when he feels the urge to pull a puff or two. That would be a twofer - first, he would not be breaking any law and second he wouldn't get his balls busted by Michelle - or even worse by Malia and Sasha. Bo would be the only witness and he ain't talkin'
(I kinda doubt the White House smoking bans have the status of law anyway)
Nice blogging with you!
Sydney: O is a serious violator of USA laws. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
[QUOTE=Sidney]Nationalized General Motors and Chrysler while turning shareholder control over to the unions, freezing out illegally the bondholders, firing the GM Chairman, and giving 35% to 50% of C to Fiat for nothing. Committed unlimited taxpayer billions in the process. The ''gutless'' courts sanctioned it. -------Why would any investor ever buy a corporate bond in the future? -------------- Who will he target next?[/QUOTE]Not a single one of those bondholders is prepared to take him to court? Didn't realise they were such a bunch of wimps. Then you disagree with the courts' decision, therefore the President acted illegally?
Is that's all you have?
Bailouts of private firms - D's = $10billion R's $1,737 billion
BAILOUTS.
Come on guys. Do your homework! Here is the history of federal bailouts of private corporations and municipalities prior to Obama's Presidency. This didn't take long with a Google search!
Please note that since the government got into the business in the Nixon years, US taxpayer money pledged or spent on bailouts totaled $10 billion under the Democrats and $1,737.3 billion under the Republicans! Little wonder business loves the Party of business!
For kicks, I am delighted to note that President Reagan was the first President to "fire" top executives as a condition of the bank getting government assistance at the Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company.
THE RECORD.
UNDER NIXON.
1970 - Penn Central - $3.2 Billion.
Penn Central Railroad, on the verge of bankruptcy, appealed to the Federal Reserve for aid. Nixon and the Fed supported them, but the Democratic Congress refused to go along. After Penn Central declared bankruptcy fearing a devastating ripple effect in money markets, the Fed provided reserves to cover the railroad's credit.
1971 – Lockheed - $1.4 Billion.
Congress passed and Nixon signed the Emergency Loan Guarantee Act, which could provide funds to any major business enterprise in crisis. Lockheed was the first recipient.
1974 - Franklin National Bank - $7.8 Billion.
After the bank lost $63.6 million over a few months, the Fed stepped in with loans.
UNDER FORD.
1975 - New York City - $9.4 Billion.
President Ford signed the New York City Seasonal Financing Act, which released $2.3 billion in loans to the beleaguered city.
UNDER CARTER.
1980 – Chrysler - $10 Billion.
The Chrysler Loan Guarantee Act provided $1.5 billion in loans to be matched by U. S. And foreign banks in order to rescue the troubled company from insolvency.
UNDER REAGAN.
1984 - Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company - $8.4 Billion.
Having bought $1 billion in bad loans from the failed Penn Square Bank of Oklahoma, Continental faced extinction. The FDIC and Fed, with Reagan's approval devised a plan to rescue the bank that included replacing the bank's top executives.
UNDER BUSH I.
1989 – Savings & Loan - $293.3 Billion.
After the widespread failure of savings and loan institutions, President George H. W. Bush signed and Congress enacted the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act in 1989.
UNDER BUSH II.
Fall 2001 – US Airlines - $18.6 Billion.
After 9/11, Bush signed the Air Transportation Safety and Stabilization Act, that provided $5 billion in compensation and $10 billion in loan guarantees and credit to cover losses related to the terror attacks.
Fall 2008 – Bear, Stearns - $30 Billion.
JP Morgan Chase and the Bush Treasury Department bailed out Bear Stearns which was about to collapse. The Fed provided a $30 billion credit line, so JP Morgan could buy the remnants.
Fall 2008 – Fannie and Freddie - $400 Billion.
Bush and Congress authorized the emergency Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, so Fannie and Freddie could essentially be nationalized and the Treasury could invest billions to cover their losses.
Fall 2008 – AIG - $180 Billion.
In four steps, the Bush Administration pumped a total of $180 billion into AIG to keep it from collapsing.
Fall 2008 - Auto Industry - $25 Billion.
In September 2008, Bush and Congress approved $25 billion in loans to the auto industry. Negotiations between the companies and Treasury could not be concluded before the end of the Bush term, so Obama inherited the issue.
Fall 2008 - Troubled Asset Relief Program - $700 Billion Available /$480 Billion Committed.
After Bush and Treasury Secretary Paulson raised the threat of a global depression, Congress authorized $700 billion under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, for an alphabet soup of different new programs.
Fall 2008 - Citigroup – $280 Billion.
In October and November, Bush gave Citigroup $45 billion in capital investment and government guarantees against losses from toxic assets, saying it was not a bailout, but funds to "bolster healthy banks" in tough times. The FDIC committed $10 billion more and the Federal Reserve up to about $220 billion.
SOURCE: ProPublica is an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest.
Sidney - where should we go to celebrate
When President Obama signs into law landmark reform legislation on health insurance? It will probably be sometime in December so a place with an outdoor patio and lots of eye candy would be nice!
Jackson - the cost of US health care pre-Obama
Don't you wish, in 2003, Bush and the Republican Congress had refused to pass a plan that added "one dime" to the deficits then and into the future?
But they didn't. Instead Bush, Lott, Delay, et al, created the first big entitlement plan since LBJ was President.
The Republicans with control of the White House, the Senate and the House could do whatever they wanted. And what did they do, you ask?
They passed the $400 billion Medicaid Prescription Program without any way to pay for it.
Mind-fucking-boggling, as we say in Boston!
Looking back we know that fiscally irresponsible act is the major reason Medicare is in trouble.
Who would have thought with all their talk of conservative values, the Texas cowboys without a second thought would add $8.7 trillion to Medicare's $21 trillion worth of unfunded future liabilities. That's 42%!
I am sure that when you think of this your blood pressure spikes.
No way that you are ROTFLMAO now for sure!
Can't believe I agree with Ricardo! But
[QUOTE=Ricardo]The Republicans with control of the White House, the Senate and the House could do whatever they wanted. And what did they do, you ask?
They passed the $400 billion Medicaid Prescription Program without any way to pay for it.
Mind-fucking-boggling, as we say in Boston![/QUOTE]Absolutely right. Should never have been enacted. The Republicans did us all a disservice by abandoning the conservative principles of smaller government and less government in our lives.
[QUOTE=Ricardo]Looking back we know that fiscally irresponsible act is the major reason Medicare is in trouble. [/QUOTE]I knew our harmony couldn't last. It wasn't meant to be. BUSH DID IT ALL!
He also killed Jimmy Hoffa and was on the Grassy Knoll and Van Jones was right about him too.
Come on, Medicare has been bankrupt for 20 years. It has never worked as promised and is financed based on redistribution.
[QUOTE=Ricardo]Who would have thought with all their talk of conservative values, the Texas cowboys without a second thought would add $8.7 trillion to Medicare's $21 trillion worth of unfunded future liabilities. That's 42%![/QUOTE]Must be Jesuit math. When you add 8.7 to 21 that equals 29.7. 8.7 is approximately 29% of 29.7.
But wait, if one accepts your 8.7 number (which I do not) and that the republicans added 29% to the unfunded liabilities, you just defeated your previous argument that it is all Bush's fault since he only added 29%.
[QUOTE=Ricardo]I am sure that when you think of this your blood pressure spikes.
No way that you are ROTFLMAO now for sure![/QUOTE]It has pissed me off for years so no spiking for me. Not ROTFLMAO, just bemused with you.
Wild man - pretty good response but Bush did not kill JFK
And I never said he did! And just because he was President in 2004, he isn't responsible for the Red Sox winning the World Series. (If he was I'd love him!
I don't say Bushie – that coke snorting, Jack Daniels swilling, spoiled, two-faced frat boy (I sound like an Obama hater here) - must be held responsible for all that ails America - just for what he is responsible for.
His fiscal disasters pale, when measured against his handling of two wars. His bad policy decisions and inept execution put too many fine US troops, innocent Iraqis and Afghans in their graves or left them suffering from physical and psychic wounds that they will carry the rest of their lives - all to no good end. Add to the human suffering, the trillions we have spent and will be paying interest on for the next few decades. Now that I blame him for.
My math statement was clumsy (I should only do numbers in the light of day) The total unfunded Medicare liability is estimated at $21 trillion, $8.7 (42%) of which is a result of the Bush drug benefit. Sorry for the mix-up.
I cite the drug program and the fact that during five Republican presidencies a total of $1.7 trillion has been spent on bailing out private corporations versus a total of $10 billion under two Democrats to offer some useful fiscal history. It all started when Nixon got the US government in the bailout business.
I typically draw the AP readers to information on the role the Republicans have played in creating our serious and deep-rooted economic travails come from so as to counter the foolishness I read here about Obama - the evil socialist out to destroy America.
I don't insist people like Obama or that they just shut up. But the temper tantrums that characterize how his detractors attack him makes them look and sound deranged. (And some of them are!
You may be surprised I blame my friends on the Democratic side for many things, mostly for getting in bed with corporate interests almost across the board and helping to create the conditions that brought down the global economy.
Years of fiscal lunacy and the implosion of the US economy created the huge deficits now facing the US.
The recent $2 trillion dollar jump didn't fall out of Obama's overcoat on inauguration day. The deep recession that started under Bush accounts for about 37% of the $2 trillion swing. About 33% stems from Bush year tax cuts and the drug benefit, which dramatically increased interest payments on the national debt. While, 20% is the result of Obama extending Bush policies on bailouts and the two on-going wars. About 7% comes from the Obama's stimulus and tax cut bill. A mere 3% comes from Obama's domestic reform agenda. (These numbers are based on data from the non-partisan, respected CBO)
As for Medicare, it certainly needs adjustments to better reflect the shifting demographics and aging of the public. I am sure the actuarial tables used to establish spending projections missed the fact that medicine and life-style changes would make people live longer. More money will be needed. So?
Does a civilized society have a responsibility for its elderly? What's wrong with a little income redistribution to meet that responsibility?
Keep smiling! And pay your taxes!
