Financial topics

[OLD1953]

Wow, haven't seen this much hair pulling for a while. This isn't warranted by the facts. We've still got a divided government, Obama can't simply dictate terms. And no, he's not going to call out the army to march on Georgia unless Georgia tries to secede. And I'm not sure he'd do it then.

I said before and say again, the USA reliably turns to the left in a crisis era, it has not failed to do this at any point since the revolution. Revolting against a king is a move to the left by the original definition of left. Freeing slaves is a move to the left. The New Deal was a move to the left.

We just had two states vote to make possession of small quantities of marijuana legal. That's ample evidence of movement to the left, even discounting the national election.

What this move will bring about is as yet unknown. The record shows two revolutions and the New Deal. What actually happens will be forced far more by events than who sits in the Oval Office.

There is one thing certain about the results of the election. The Blue Dog Democrats are no longer a meaningful force in Congress. There are no moderate Senators left with any real power, there is no longer any internal pressure on Democrats to give way to Republican demands and there has been little or no pressure internally on Republicans to give way to Democrat demands in the House. There aren't going to be back door agreements made nor are there likely to be any "groups of whatever" dictating terms, the people who could do that all departed. We've got solidly divided government with a vengance, and the assumption that minority Democrats would cooperate with majority Republicans better than minority Republicans would cooperate with majority Democrats is probably dead in the water. They no longer have any reason to do so. It will be surprising if such a group manages to form, they'll be cutting their own throats come next election and they have to know that.

I would not bet ten cents against Harry Reid modifying the rules of debate for the next Senate. We are very likely to return to the live filibuster, where the Senator must hold the floor constantly to continue the filibuster. Moreover, the rule to move to the floor will likely be modified to require a simple majority. Doubtless this will pass on party lines, and I'm sure it will go to the Supreme Court the next day.

And this is going to lead to some interesting politics over the next four years. Plus a point nobody wants to mention, Romney won four states where Senate candidates on his ticket lost. Finding out why voters crossed over on those Senate tickets would seem to be crucial to understanding this election.

And somebody needs to give the election commission of Florida extra homework or something. Now they are saying it will be Saturday before they get votes counted. That's ridiculous.

[Reality Check]

Romney won four states where Senate candidates on his ticket lost. Finding out why voters crossed over on those Senate tickets would seem to be crucial to understanding this election.

Under the same heading of coincidences searching for creative conspiracy theories.

Ohio has 16 Congressional districts all just reapportioned with equal size populations.

Tuesday night 12 of the 16 Congressional districts were convincingly won by Republicans.

Romney lost Ohio.

[Reality Check]

We've still got a divided government, Obama can't simply dictate terms.

Obama apparently did not get that memo. He did it before the election, and there is absolutely no reason to believe he will stop now that he has survived the last chance the voters had to fire him.

Obama does not have to "dictate terms". He simply re-writes the existing federal laws ( by executive order; or by an executive branch regulatory agency "re-interpretating" the existing federal statutes as to what regulatory laws Congress authorized the Executive branch to write, and the agency then writing new regulator law to accomplish the "newly discovered original intent" of the Congress which wrote the statute years ago ). The Obama administration can then use the U.S. Governments executive powers to implement those "new laws" just like the executive branch implements any other federal statutory, or federal regulatory, law. This is not speculation, it is what Obama did before the election. Obama no longer fears Congress or the voters.

Since Obama already did it before the election, and Obama's political opponent brought that up during the campaign, Obama now has an electoral mandate to keep doing it.

[aedens]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... Z1BDnXVM7o#!

[OLD1953]

Obama has been less willing to exercise the power of the office than Bush was, and Bush came closer to actually behaving as the third branch of government than any other President in my lifetime. This seems to get lost in translation somewhere by a lot of people.

Just for example, the President of the United States has control over every navigable stream in the borders of the United States, where ever situate. A navigable stream is anything over three feet deep. This includes drawing water from such streams and delivering water to such streams. This power has been in existence since the 1930's. How does the President get this power? The authority to manage navigable waters was given to the Army Corps of Engineers, and the President commands the Armed Forces, of which the USACE is a part. If Obama said tomorrow that you would move your water lines in the Ohio River, you'd have to move them or not get water drawing permits renewed. This might or might not be appropriate exercise of authority, but it would most certainly be a legal exercise of authority. There would be no legal recourse as the President has this authority over the people who manage the streams, and this authority has already been upheld by the Supreme Court decades ago.

(You might want to note that this was actually discussed some years back, as several countries require water intakes to be downstream from the system outflow, thus ensuing cleanup of the water returned, else you get your own filth right back in the system. The US hasn't as yet decided to follow suit, but it would take just one executive order.)

This is how our government has been set up to operate. I may disagree with an executive order, but the President has the right to issue them. I strongly disliked a number of Bush's orders, particularly several regarding the military, and certain bits of reorganization that most never heard about. He had the legal right to issue them whether I liked them or not. Obama is on track right now to issue fewer than Bush, Bush issued nearly 300 and Obama was about 140 over his first term, unless he issues another ten or twelve in the next couple of months. Neither one was even close to the record held by FDR of over 3000, Teddy had about half that. Bush was actually a bit under the recent average.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

Incidentally, it seems to me you've been getting some of the emails I've been getting. You might also want to look at those numbers in the link above, several executive orders I've seen attributed to Obama were actually issued in the 60's by Kennedy.

[Reality Check]

Just for example, the President of the United States has control over every navigable stream in the borders of the United States, where ever situate. A navigable stream is anything over three feet deep. This includes drawing water from such streams and delivering water to such streams. This power has been in existence since the 1930's. How does the President get this power? The authority to manage navigable waters was given to the Army Corps of Engineers, and the President commands the Armed Forces, of which the USACE is a part. If Obama said tomorrow that you would move your water lines in the Ohio River, you'd have to move them or not get water drawing permits renewed. This might or might not be appropriate exercise of authority, but it would most certainly be a legal exercise of authority. There would be no legal recourse as the President has this authority over the people who manage the streams, and this authority has already been upheld by the Supreme Court decades ago.

We were talking about the powers of the legislative branch of the federal government, versus the powers of the executive branch of the federal government.

And how Obama does not need to work with the Congress if he can simply start re-writing the laws in the executive branch without bothering to have Congress change the laws.

You are now trying to change the discussion to federal government powers in general ( executive, legislative and judicial combined ) vs non-federal government powers.

I know you understand the separation of powers, and checks and balances designed into the federal government, relative to the powers of the legislative branch and the powers of the executive branch, by the U.S. constitution, and I know you understand that is what we were discussing.

So why are you bringing up facts, which even to the degree they are true, have no relevance to what we were discussing ???

Can we at least agree that if Obama now has the ability to re-write laws without Congress, then Obama no longer has to work with Congress to implement changes to existing law ???

[OLD1953]

The President's power to change the law is limited to the executive order. Executive orders tell the various agencies how to intepret the law in certain contexts. In what way is that not what we are discussing? If you are insinuating that Obama needs to subvert the law to exert his will, I'd say you are wrong. And gave the near absolute power over the navigable waters as an example of that power.

[Reality Check]

Obama needs to subvert the law to exert his will

First,

I have no clue what you believe that statement means, so I have no idea what you are trying to insinuate with it, and I will not try to guess what you mean.

[Reality Check]

gave the near absolute power over the navigable waters as an example of that power.

As you well know, that is a power given to the entire Federal Government.

Which, is of course irrelevant to a discussion of the relative powers of the executive branch of the federal government, and the powers of the legislative branch of the federal government.

So, again, why are you repeatedly stating irrelevant facts ???

[Reality Check]

Again,

Can we at least agree that if Obama now has the ability to re-write laws without Congress, then Obama no longer has to work with Congress to implement changes to existing law ???