The Kurtz Republicans

[Luigi]

Obama is simply the most ineffectual president the country has had in generations. He wants what he wants, he wants it now, and he wants Congress to give it to him, because - gosh darn it! - he's the president. It's a pretty ineffectual president who lets himself be cornered and then held hostage by the speaker of the House - or a splinter group under the speaker of the House. But that's what happens when you elect some with NO political experience to the highest elective office on the face of the planet. 

 

Kennedy could finesse legislative blocks. Johnson could make deals with the devil himself. Nixon knew what incentives to offer his opponents to win their votes; he also "jaw-boned". Ford accomplished little - we can't use him as an example. Carter was about as ineffectual as Obama. Reagan would pull the end-around on Congress and go straight to the people, telling them to pressure their reps. Clinton charmed. Bush asserted. Obama does none of the above - he just demands. 

 

I've taken to calling him the Demander in Chief. 

[4588686]

Obama is simply the most ineffectual president the country has had in generations. He wants what he wants, he wants it now, and he wants Congress to give it to him, because - gosh darn it! - he's the president. It's a pretty ineffectual president who lets himself be cornered and then held hostage by the speaker of the House - or a splinter group under the speaker of the House. But that's what happens when you elect some with NO political experience to the highest elective office on the face of the planet. 

 

Kennedy could finesse legislative blocks. Johnson could make deals with the devil himself. Nixon knew what incentives to offer his opponents to win their votes; he also "jaw-boned". Ford accomplished little - we can't use him as an example. Carter was about as ineffectual as Obama. Reagan would pull the end-around on Congress and go straight to the people, telling them to pressure their reps. Clinton charmed. Bush asserted. Obama does none of the above - he just demands. 

 

I've taken to calling him the Demander in Chief. 

 

 

Kennedy was a hack.  Fortunately, that parasitic family is dying off.  

[Aloysius]

the power of the purse strings is supposed to be a bargaining chip for the house, in terms of funding programs AND in terms of raising the debt ceiling.  the Senate and the Executive are supposed to have to treat it seriously, they're not supposed to assume that Congress will raise the debt ceiling every time.  which is why 2006 Senator Barack Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling for George W. Bush.

 

one of the most irresponsible things that's been coming out of the government lately is Barack Obama actually referring to not raising the debt ceiling as a certain "default".  It does not have to be a default... and the only person who could ensure that it would be a default would be Barack Obama himself.  if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling, the executive should prioritize and pay the interest on the debt no matter what... by Obama suggesting that he would default on the debt, he's threatening the idea of completely destroying the full faith and credit of the US government.  he should take that off the table, say that no matter what the debt will get paid, and instead use as his political leverage the fact that agencies could fail and checks won't go out on time, from social security to medicare or whatever, that's a big enough problem with not raising the debt ceiling but stop threatening default for God's sake!  default means tearing down the global financial markets, and he wouldn't have to do that at all if Congress didn't raise the debt ceiling, because there's way more than enough money coming in to pay the obligations on the debt so that people will t-bills will continue turning them over.

 

the fact is a president should have to negotiate with the house in order to get legislation funded.  the problem is that we've re-arranged everything so that congress can never exercise its power of the purse strings without the idea that it'd be a total disaster, so they should just always give the other branches funding all the time, which makes the power of the purse strings a pointless power.   honestly, the House should've pulled the funding on the Iraq war to get George W Bush's attention if they were really serious about opposing it.  whether it really makes sense this time around, I won't make much of a decision on that, but in general, to restore the house's ability to have the power of the purse strings, they should ALWAYS pass individual appropriations bills instead of bundled ones (so that stopping one appropriations bill doesn't defund the whole government) and the Senate should pass the Full Faith and Credit act so that we can guarantee that no matter what the debate ever is in congress, the US government is never in danger of defaulting, because by law the executive will have to pay the obligations on the debt first.

[4588686]

the power of the purse strings is supposed to be a bargaining chip for the house, in terms of funding programs AND in terms of raising the debt ceiling.  the Senate and the Executive are supposed to have to treat it seriously, they're not supposed to assume that Congress will raise the debt ceiling every time.  which is why 2006 Senator Barack Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling for George W. Bush.

 

one of the most irresponsible things that's been coming out of the government lately is Barack Obama actually referring to not raising the debt ceiling as a certain "default".  It does not have to be a default... and the only person who could ensure that it would be a default would be Barack Obama himself.  if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling, the executive should prioritize and pay the interest on the debt no matter what... by Obama suggesting that he would default on the debt, he's threatening the idea of completely destroying the full faith and credit of the US government.  he should take that off the table, say that no matter what the debt will get paid, and instead use as his political leverage the fact that agencies could fail and checks won't go out on time, from social security to medicare or whatever, that's a big enough problem with not raising the debt ceiling but stop threatening default for God's sake!  default means tearing down the global financial markets, and he wouldn't have to do that at all if Congress didn't raise the debt ceiling, because there's way more than enough money coming in to pay the obligations on the debt so that people will t-bills will continue turning them over.

 

the fact is a president should have to negotiate with the house in order to get legislation funded.  the problem is that we've re-arranged everything so that congress can never exercise its power of the purse strings without the idea that it'd be a total disaster, so they should just always give the other branches funding all the time, which makes the power of the purse strings a pointless power.   honestly, the House should've pulled the funding on the Iraq war to get George W Bush's attention if they were really serious about opposing it.  whether it really makes sense this time around, I won't make much of a decision on that, but in general, to restore the house's ability to have the power of the purse strings, they should ALWAYS pass individual appropriations bills instead of bundled ones (so that stopping one appropriations bill doesn't defund the whole government) and the Senate should pass the Full Faith and Credit act so that we can guarantee that no matter what the debate ever is in congress, the US government is never in danger of defaulting, because by law the executive will have to pay the obligations on the debt first.

 

Edited October 14, 2013 by Hasan