Has the current presidential administration doomed our future?

[Cyclotron]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Has the current presidential administration doomed our future?

Originally posted by Ned
But, HONESTLY, what are Bush's other screwups than mishandling post-invasion Iraq that everyone agrees was caused by insufficient troops.

And other than invading in the first place?

[chequita guevara]

Bush has unilaterally decided that 750 laws don't apply to him because of his interpretation of the Consitution. He just up said signed an executive order that he doesn't have to obey them.

Clinton only did that 150 times.



Am I alone in thinking the President shouldn't be able to do this even 1 time? If he thinks a law is unconstitutional, shouldn't he take it up with the Supremes?

[Kuciwalker]

The Supreme Court isn't the only arbiter of the Constitution. It may be the final one, but the other branches have the power to interpret it as well.

[Lorizael]

Uh. Uh. Where's it say that?

[Dis]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Where the heck do you live
There's been:
(1) No overcrowding of hospitals?
(2) No overcrowding of schools?
(3) Tuitions at public colleges haven't gone up decreasing the number of educated people to power the economy in your old age?
(4) Freeways and roads haven't deteriorated?
(5) Police and firefighters aren't short handed?
Simply amazing!

our taxes have gone up considerably (though we don't have state tax). But not because of Bush's policies. But because our politicians are California immigrants who are greedy and want to steal hard working people's money for bull**** programs.

[Dis]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
In 2050 when they write the history of why the U.S. collapsed, they will start with the vote fraud and coup d'etat in 2000 leading to the worst presidency in our history. Subsequent adminisitrations were unable to fix the problem, and eventually America collapsed under mounting debt.

we've had worse presidents in the 19th century. Although thankfully, the president had little power then (as it should be). The president simply has too much power today.

[Odin]

Neddy Boy seems as deluded as usual.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
The expansion in debt must match roughly the expansion in the economy.

In other words you must have deficits as long as the economy is growing to keep up with the growth.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Bush has unilaterally decided that 750 laws don't apply to him because of his interpretation of the Consitution. He just up said signed an executive order that he doesn't have to obey them.

Clinton only did that 150 times.



Am I alone in thinking the President shouldn't be able to do this even 1 time? If he thinks a law is unconstitutional, shouldn't he take it up with the Supremes?

Who needs the Supremes? The Prez has veto power for a reason.

As for the "signing statement" and its egregious expansion of executive powers, we can -- not surprisingly -- thank the Reagan administration for that bright idea.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well... unfortunatly the President has the power to enforce the laws. His interpretation of the law is important because of that power. If Congress believes that he is interpreting the law incorrectly, they have the power to impeach or an affected party can sue in court.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Odin
Neddy Boy seems as deluded as usual.

Deluded is an understatement...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Dis


we've had worse presidents in the 19th century. Although thankfully, the president had little power then (as it should be). The president simply has too much power today.

I'm not sure.

I would suggest that there are two kinds of bad presidents:

1) Presidents who do more harm than good, and do it by abusing the power of their office or allowing such abuse (Grant, Harding, Nixon)

2) Presidents who do more harm than good, and do it by making really, really bad decisions (Pierce, Buchanan, Hayes, Hoover, Nixon)

Bush, like Nixon, belongs on both lists. Unfortunately, he won't have Nixon's masterful handling of the Cold War and other sensible and successful policies (like creating the EPA) to add even a little bit of weight to the other side of the scale.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't agree with your dicotomy, Rufus. I believe there are Presidents who end up doing more harm than good through inaction (not necessarily 'really, really bad decisions'). Buchanan & Hoover would fit there (though Hoover was more guilty of doing too little, even though his RFC was the precursor to the New Deal). I think Hoover and Buchanan get waaay too much blame for being 'bad' Presidents mostly because they were followed by great Presidents and they did not do things that their great successors did, mostly because that wasn't even considered to be part of a President's duties (it isn't coincidental that Lincoln and FDR expanded the executive's power more than any other Presidents in history).

And I think Grant was more incompetant than simply 'allowing such abuse' (that makes it sound worse than what Grant actually did). He was a general and wasn't prepared for politics. Though absurdly popular throughout.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I don't agree with your dicotomy, Rufus. I believe there are Presidents who end up doing more harm than good through inaction (not necessarily 'really, really bad decisions'). Buchanan & Hoover would fit there (though Hoover was more guilty of doing too little, even though his RFC was the precursor to the New Deal). I think Hoover and Buchanan get waaay too much blame for being 'bad' Presidents mostly because they were followed by great Presidents and they did not do things that their great successors did, mostly because that wasn't even considered to be part of a President's duties (it isn't coincidental that Lincoln and FDR expanded the executive's power more than any other Presidents in history).

We're quibbling...but I'll quibble.

Hoover bringing out the military to trounce the Bonus Army is one of the truly horrendous decision in presidential history. Beyond that, though, his inaction was a decision. There's abundant evidence that he considered a range of options in dealing with the Depression, and actively chose to do nothing, largely for ideological reasons (free market and all that). The same is true of Buchanan (though I agree with you about his rep; Pierce was a far worse presisdent). Buchanan wasn't inactive; he actively chose to do nothing, after considering a range of options. Both are titanic failures of leadership.

As for their being followed by great presidents, its true that Lincoln and FDR both had greatness thrust upon them. But great presidents tend to follow awful presidents precisely because one of the things that makes great presidents great is that they clean up the messes made by awful presidents.

And I think Grant was more incompetant than simply 'allowing such abuse' (that makes it sound worse than what Grant actually did). He was a general and wasn't prepared for politics. Though absurdly popular throughout.

Absolutely right -- Grant was incompetent. But it was the abuse of office that was a problem. Had he been merely incompetent, he would be considered a mere presidential mediocrity, joining other presidents who were out of their depth (Madison, JQ Adams, etc.) And while Grant didn't profit from the corruption in his administration, he did foster the atmosphere that allowed it to flourish.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Master Zen


You are utterly deluded Ned as well as completely ignorant of history.

Indeed, germans and italians were also sent to camps. The difference is however, was that these were german and italian nationals, not American citizens. Japanese people on the other hand, were interned regardless of the fact that they were japanese nationals or american citizens. Well over half of those interned were US citizens.

So how exactly is that NOT racist?

How exactly is the segregation policies against blacks at the time NOT racist?

Please...

Since you and I said the same thing, we seem to agree on the facts.

But, the excuse given at the time was that even for American Japanese, the Emperor was a God and that their loyalty could not be assured if given a choice between America and their Emperor.

Now, you can debate this point, but it certainly is not irrational.