Conclusion: The Left and Right are Both Nuts

[PapaG]

We've had this discussion before, but Obama didn't fire Wagoner. Wagoner resigned at the request of the government.

But, the point is, he didn't have to. He could have said, I'm keeping my job and you can keep your goddamn handout.

Obama didn't and doesn't have the power to fire him. He does, however, have the power to withhold government funding. As has every other president.

barfo

Semantics, and it still is unparalleled in terms of executive power. Why you guys can't just admit that Obama has expanded the powers of the executive branch is baffling to me.

EDIT- yak just did. Kudos to him for stepping outside of the partisan box.

 

[barfo]

Semantics, and it still is unparalleled in terms of executive power. Why you guys can't just admit that Obama has expanded the powers of the executive branch is baffling to me.

EDIT- yak just did. Kudos to him for stepping outside of the partisan box.

It's not semantics. The power he used is one that presidents have always had. It was just a different situation, one not faced by prior presidents. Did he do something that prior presidents never did? Absolutely. Did it create new powers for the executive? I'd say no. [talking strictly here about the ouster of Wagoner].

I think the brokering of the bankruptcies might be a better argument for expansion of powers.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

It's not semantics. The power he used is one that presidents have always had. It was just a different situation, one not faced by prior presidents. Did he do something that prior presidents never did? Absolutely. Did it create new powers for the executive? I'd say no. [talking strictly here about the ouster of Wagoner].

I think the brokering of the bankruptcies might be a better argument for expansion of powers.

barfo

Clearly we're not going to find middle ground, and GM was not given the option of going through a normal bankruptcy. Instead, assets were divvied up and handed out to a European company and the GM union. Bond holders were left with a giant dump taken on them. It's unprecedented, and we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[barfo]

Clearly we're not going to find middle ground, and GM was not given the option of going through a normal bankruptcy.

GM could have declared bankruptcy anytime they wanted. They didn't want to.

Instead, assets were divvied up and handed out to a European company and the GM union.

I think you are confusing GM with Chrysler.

Bond holders were left with a giant dump taken on them. It's unprecedented, and we'll just have to agree to disagree.

We won't have to disagree. I just suggested in my last post that the bankruptcy proceedings did seem like a candidate for 'expansion of powers'.

barfo

 

[yakbladder]

Bond holders were left with a giant dump taken on them. It's unprecedented, and we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Are you saying bond holders getting dumped on is unprecedented (which is incorrect) or are you saying that Obama/Congress dealing with GM was unprecedented?

 

[PapaG]

Are you saying bond holders getting dumped on is unprecedented (which is incorrect) or are you saying that Obama/Congress dealing with GM was unprecedented?

The normal bankruptcy process was bypassed and bastardized. Bond holders would normally get first crack at any assets. This did not happen as they were skipped over by Fiat and the union.

 

[yakbladder]

The normal bankruptcy process was bypassed and bastardized. Bond holders would normally get first crack at any assets. This did not happen as they were skipped over by Fiat and the union.

??? Fiat had nothing to do with GM.

 

[Denny Crane]

what's new about "czars"? presidents have been using them for ages (since at least andrew jackson, by my count, although he didn't use the term "czar.") the name is stupid/scary, but if obama's use of various policy advisers ("czars") is so terrifying, then why wasn't it equally terrifying nine months ago when g.w. bush was doing it or ten years ago when clinton was doing it or 25 years ago when reagan was doing it?

as with all these tea party anti-obama protests, the protesters who are so vehemently declaring that the current president is a tyrant are protesting things that they accepted as A-OK nine months ago when "their guy" was president... the hypocrisy and ignorance is stunning to me.

even fox news (!) has blown this bogus "controversy" out of the water:

History of Czars in the US government - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars

Number appointed by GW Bush - 46

Number appointed by Obama - 35

Number appointed by Clinton - 11

Interesting Czars appointed by GW Bush -

Abstinence czar
bird flu czar
birth control czar
faith-based czar/faith czar

So the premise here is Obama does nothing of the sort of things Bush did. Yet the evidence is "35" - or he is doing the same sort of things.

 

[Stepping Razor]

So the premise here is Obama does nothing of the sort of things Bush did. Yet the evidence is "35" - or he is doing the same sort of things.

no, as i said repeatedly, the premise is that obama has disappointed in many ways -- most of them involving his failure to rollback the executive power grabs of the bush years. i would argue that the "czars" issue is an extremely minor one of those; having a "special advisor on green jobs" is, to me, much less of an indicator of creeping tyranny than, say, continuing bush administration claims that the president has the right to data-mine everyone in the country's electronic communications without a warrant.

but in either case, what i don't get is why all these people are out in the street waving around signs proclaiming obama to be the new hitler, and justifying those ludicrous claims on the basis of obama administration actions that are indistinguishable from or even far less egregious than those of previous administrations (especially obama's immediate predecessor).

i have no problem with civil libertarians protesting abuses of executive power. i've been doing it for a long time and will continue to do so, whether the president is someone i voted for (obama) or not (bush). my problem is with the rank hypocrites and/or mindless ignoramuses who didn't give a shit about any of these things when their guy was in power (in fact, cheered them on lustily) but now suddenly are overcome with inchoate rage masquerading as civil libertarianism because their side lost power.

look at this slideshow again:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/42406957@N04/sets/72157622225596987/show/

can you honestly tell me that these are good people? that they're standing for any coherent principle? that they even know what the F they're talking about? no. what it boils down to is they hate democrats, they hate minorities, they hate immigrants, they hate liberals, and... more than anything, they hate losing power. they don't believe that the government is legitimate, just because they lost a free and fair election. sore loser city, that's all this is, stoked into a frenzy by the shameless propaganda of fox news. our country is in great shape.