OT - State of the Union Address

[...]

That simply isn't true. He's not doing more than an average president. And most of the time it's not even a true power grab, it's Congress either delegating powers through legislation or not doing anything to assert their constitutional authority.

 

Taking over car manufacturers in non-war-time is not a power grab? Recess appointments when Congress is NOT in recess is not a power grab? Obama care is NOT a power grab?

 

No offense, but in just debating hockey with you I note how you exaggerate positions and statements, and make assumptions that you have no business making. You may accuse me of that, but you do it yourself consistently. And then you demand that the other party provide proof and follow a certain logic, when you yourself do not follow your own rules for debate. I'm not going to waste time getting into minutiae and detail when I know that it'll be constant battle of back-tracking, reiterating, correcting and simply spinning the wheels. In the end it won't matter to anyone here, anyway. Again, no offense, but I will decline the invite to debate here.

 

You missed my point.

 

No matter who holds the office, or what they say, or what they do ... policy is dictated by those very few who hold the real power. Presidents come and go, but this group does not change. The President, Congress and the Supreme Court are all puppets, who are put in place to do the bidding of this group.

 

The CFR or the Trilateralists?

[Sabres Fan in NS]

The CFR or the Trilateralists?

 

Neither.

[JJFIVEOH]

 

 

Taking over car manufacturers in non-war-time is not a power grab? Recess appointments when Congress is NOT in recess is not a power grab? Obama care is NOT a power grab?

 

No offense, but in just debating hockey with you I note how you exaggerate positions and statements, and make assumptions that you have no business making. You may accuse me of that, but you do it yourself consistently. And then you demand that the other party provide proof and follow a certain logic, when you yourself do not follow your own rules for debate. I'm not going to waste time getting into minutiae and detail when I know that it'll be constant battle of back-tracking, reiterating, correcting and simply spinning the wheels. In the end it won't matter to anyone here, anyway. Again, no offense, but I will decline the invite to debate here.

 

 

 

The CFR or the Trilateralists?

 

Or banks? Who did that?

[TrueBlueGED]

Taking over car manufacturers in non-war-time is not a power grab? Recess appointments when Congress is NOT in recess is not a power grab? Obama care is NOT a power grab?

 

No offense, but in just debating hockey with you I note how you exaggerate positions and statements, and make assumptions that you have no business making. You may accuse me of that, but you do it yourself consistently. And then you demand that the other party provide proof and follow a certain logic, when you yourself do not follow your own rules for debate. I'm not going to waste time getting into minutiae and detail when I know that it'll be constant battle of back-tracking, reiterating, correcting and simply spinning the wheels. In the end it won't matter to anyone here, anyway. Again, no offense, but I will decline the invite to debate here.

 

 

 

The CFR or the Trilateralists?

 

President George W. Bush originally authorized $17.4 billion in loans for GM and Chrysler, with the terms of the loans requiring they radically restructure and return to profitability. Further loans were extended under the Obama administration. Those loans were largely converted into stock as GM went through Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. At its peak, the US government owned about 61% of GM stock. In November 2010, it sold about half and now owns roughly 33%, which will be sold off in coming months/years. Chrysler was never majority-owned by the government, and is now majority-owned by Fiat, which will eventually increase its holding to 100%. The point is, those loans....were extended as part of TARP. You know, that legislation passed by Congress. Hardly a power grab. You can certainly argue it was unsavory, or against the country's tenets or whatever, but it was action taken in a way consistent with our system of lawmaking.

 

How exactly is Obamacare a power grab? Again, it was passed by Congress (beat the filibuster in the Senate to boot, so it's not like it was shoved through by way of reconciliation). You can disagree with the mandate, think it's unconstitutional. That's fine. But it wasn't a power grab.

 

The recess appointments may have been a power grab, but that's to be decided by the courts. The Senate was technically on a 20 day recess, and had only met with pro-forma sessions, where only a few Senators were present and no actual business was conducted. Now, this may not hold up in court, it all depends how you define "in session." However, it's not like people got appointed while the Senate was in the process of actually debating. And really, if questionable recess appointments are your definition of an extreme power grab, I'm not sure what to tell you, but your definition of extreme is far different than mine.

[SwampD]

Taking over car manufacturers in non-war-time is not a power grab? Recess appointments when Congress is NOT in recess is not a power grab? Obama care is NOT a power grab?

 

No offense, but in just debating hockey with you I note how you exaggerate positions and statements, and make assumptions that you have no business making. You may accuse me of that, but you do it yourself consistently. And then you demand that the other party provide proof and follow a certain logic, when you yourself do not follow your own rules for debate. I'm not going to waste time getting into minutiae and detail when I know that it'll be constant battle of back-tracking, reiterating, correcting and simply spinning the wheels. In the end it won't matter to anyone here, anyway. Again, no offense, but I will decline the invite to debate here.

 

 

 

The CFR or the Trilateralists?

I find it funny that all those maufacturing jobs we would have lost had Obama not done that, would have gone to countries with socialized medicine.

[Taro T]

President George W. Bush originally authorized $17.4 billion in loans for GM and Chrysler, with the terms of the loans requiring they radically restructure and return to profitability. Further loans were extended under the Obama administration. Those loans were largely converted into stock as GM went through Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. At its peak, the US government owned about 61% of GM stock. In November 2010, it sold about half and now owns roughly 33%, which will be sold off in coming months/years. Chrysler was never majority-owned by the government, and is now majority-owned by Fiat, which will eventually increase its holding to 100%. The point is, those loans....were extended as part of TARP. You know, that legislation passed by Congress. Hardly a power grab. You can certainly argue it was unsavory, or against the country's tenets or whatever, but it was action taken in a way consistent with our system of lawmaking.

 

How exactly is Obamacare a power grab? Again, it was passed by Congress (beat the filibuster in the Senate to boot, so it's not like it was shoved through by way of reconciliation). You can disagree with the mandate, think it's unconstitutional. That's fine. But it wasn't a power grab.

 

The recess appointments may have been a power grab, but that's to be decided by the courts. The Senate was technically on a 20 day recess, and had only met with pro-forma sessions, where only a few Senators were present and no actual business was conducted. Now, this may not hold up in court, it all depends how you define "in session." However, it's not like people got appointed while the Senate was in the process of actually debating. And really, if questionable recess appointments are your definition of an extreme power grab, I'm not sure what to tell you, but your definition of extreme is far different than mine.

No, they were not 'technically on a 20 day recess.' Technically they were NOT in a recess which is why the recess appointments are unconstitutional. And if 'no actual business was conducted' how exactly did President Obama's payroll tax holiday get extended during this period? Gremlins?

 

I'm not going to get into the rest of your post as it would take far too much typing.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

It may be hard to judge after the way GW Sandusky'd the Constitution for 7 years.

 

It is probably just me, but I believe this to be out of line.

[Eleven]

It is probably just me, but I believe this to be out of line.

 

You're right, but only because it was slightly over seven years.

[...]

I find it funny that all those maufacturing jobs we would have lost had Obama not done that, would have gone to countries with socialized medicine.

 

I don't see a correlation between auto industry jobs and socialized medicine. Care to explain?

 

You don't know what would have happened to all of those jobs, anyway. For all you know GM, for example, would have declared bankruptcy, restructured, and thereby ridding itself of the union. Since the unions are a huge voting block for democrats, not to mention political operatives and a major donor, Obama simply could not let the UAW lose half its power (or more) overnight.

 

But, it's all good, right? Union influence on the executive and legislative (and most likely the judicial as well) branches is okay, just as long as it's not "big business". Oops - Wall Street and big business are among Obama's top donors, with, not surprisingly I guess, the University of California and Harvard among the largest donors.

[TrueBlueGED]

No, they were not 'technically on a 20 day recess.' Technically they were NOT in a recess which is why the recess appointments are unconstitutional. And if 'no actual business was conducted' how exactly did President Obama's payroll tax holiday get extended during this period? Gremlins?

 

I'm not going to get into the rest of your post as it would take far too much typing.

 

The House used a pro forma session to extend the payroll tax holiday, as they were in recess on December 23. The Senate was not yet on recess. The Senate was on recess from Jan 3-23 (20 day recess!) and the House was also on recess, although I don't believe it was exactly a 20 day period. A pro-forma session CAN be used for official business, but usually isn't. Every 3 days the gavel is struck in Congress, and about 5 seconds later (perhaps an exaggeration), it's struck again, ending the session. According to Congress, they are only technically in recess if they are on recess for more than 3 days (ironically, in this case, a scheme devised by the Democrats to thwart President George W. Bush's frequent recess appointments). Hence, recess appointments should be impossible as long as the gavel is struck every 3 days. However, last I checked, there's nothing specifically in the Constitution about this, it's a congressionally-devised rule. Which of course is why I said it may be a power grab, but it's for the courts to decide.

 

edit: 2011 schedule: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.rollcall.com%2Fmedia%2Fnewspics%2Fcalendar120910.pdf

2012 schedule: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rollcall.com%2Fmedia%2Fnewspics%2F110211calendar.pdf

Article I of the Constitution: "Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting."

---note, this says nothing about being on recess for less than 3 days not counting as a recess. If anything, it implies a recess is a recess, regardless of length of time.

Article II of the Constitution: "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

[Taro T]

The House used a pro forma session to extend the payroll tax holiday, as they were in recess on December 23. The Senate was not yet on recess. The Senate was on recess from Jan 3-23 (20 day recess!) and the House was also on recess, although I don't believe it was exactly a 20 day period. A pro-forma session CAN be used for official business, but usually isn't. Every 3 days the gavel is struck in Congress, and about 5 seconds later (perhaps an exaggeration), it's struck again, ending the session. According to Congress, they are only technically in recess if they are on recess for more than 3 days (ironically, in this case, a scheme devised by the Democrats to thwart President George W. Bush's frequent recess appointments). Hence, recess appointments should be impossible as long as the gavel is struck every 3 days. However, last I checked, there's nothing specifically in the Constitution about this, it's a congressionally-devised rule. Which of course is why I said it may be a power grab, but it's for the courts to decide.

 

You might want to check a little closer. Article 1 Section 5:

 

"Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting."

 

They weren't adjourned, which means they weren't in recess. While I find the situation to be skirting the rules, President Obama is in the wrong on this one.

[TrueBlueGED]

You might want to check a little closer. Article 1 Section 5:

 

"Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting."

 

They weren't adjourned, which means they weren't in recess. While I find the situation to be skirting the rules, President Obama is in the wrong on this one.

 

Constitutional interpretation is fun! (This isn't sarcasm, or me being snarky. I actually do really enjoy talking about the Constitution, what it says, what it means, how it applies to modern society, etc.) If 2 Senators show up, strike a gavel twice, then repeat the process every 3 days, what exactly is that? As I mentioned, it was a scheme devised by Democratic Senators to stop George W. Bush's recess appointments. What about that section of the Constitution says that the 3 days aren't an adjournment? All it's saying is if they are to adjourn for more than 3 days, each house needs the consent of the other--there is no definition of adjournment. If you cannot adjourn for more than 3 days, then certainly those 3 days are in fact an adjournment. Now, the Constitution does provide that Congress has control over its own rules, and if in their rules it says anything 3 days or less does not count as recess, that is an argument which can be used against the president in this case.

 

I'm not saying Obama is right or wrong, just making the point that it's not blatantly unconstitutional on face. It's a question for the courts to decide, as I believe there are legal arguments on both sides.

 

Edit to clarify to clarify I'm not trying to be a douche about this! ;)

[SwampD]

I don't see a correlation between auto industry jobs and socialized medicine. Care to explain?

 

You don't know what would have happened to all of those jobs, anyway. For all you know GM, for example, would have declared bankruptcy, restructured, and thereby ridding itself of the union. Since the unions are a huge voting block for democrats, not to mention political operatives and a major donor, Obama simply could not let the UAW lose half its power (or more) overnight.

 

But, it's all good, right? Union influence on the executive and legislative (and most likely the judicial as well) branches is okay, just as long as it's not "big business". Oops - Wall Street and big business are among Obama's top donors, with, not surprisingly I guess, the University of California and Harvard among the largest donors.

Do you really not think that having to provide health insurance for an entire plant's worth of employees plays no part in the decision on where a company would build one? And if it is such a horrible thing, like we've been led to believe by most on the right, how is it that any plant has suvived, let alone been recently opened, in Canada, at all?

 

And as far as what a big meany Obama is to Big Business, most companies are sitting on record amounts of cash and have made record profits last year. How again is he stifling them?

[Taro T]

Constitutional interpretation is fun! If 2 Senators show up, strike a gavel twice, then repeat the process every 3 days, what exactly is that? As I mentioned, it was a scheme devised by Democratic Senators to stop George W. Bush's recess appointments. What about that section of the Constitution says that the 3 days aren't an adjournment? All it's saying is if they are to adjourn for more than 3 days, each house needs the consent of the other--there is no definition of adjournment. If you cannot adjourn for more than 3 days, then certainly those 3 days are in fact an adjournment. Now, the Constitution does provide that Congress has control over its own rules, and if in their rules it says anything 3 days or less does not count as recess, that is an argument which can be used against the president in this case.

 

I'm not saying Obama is right or wrong, just making the point that it's not blatantly unconstitutional on face. It's a question for the courts to decide, as I believe there are legal arguments on both sides.

Oh, it definitely is a question for the courts to decide - when one branch tries to step on the toes of another branch the 3rd needs to be involved. But the Senate never got consent from the House for an adjournment; THAT is the part of the Constitution that says it isn't an adjournment.

 

President Obama is going to get spanked on this one 9-0 just like he did on Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

 

And you really aren't helping your case by editing in comments after the fact implying that any break in action of the Senate at all (like leaving for the evening or the weekend) could be a recess. That appears to be the argument that President Obama's crew will be making and it is on its face absurd.

[TrueBlueGED]

I think the exact argument DOJ made in their 23 page brief/memo is that a couple Senators showing up to take 2 seconds to smack the gavel is not an action that constitutes a break in recess. Now, if he courts decide the recess was not a recess in the constitutional terms you state, Obama will absolutely lose. This is of course assuming the courts don't "punt" and refuse to rule on grounds it is a political question, which could happen if Congress runs first to court rather than attempting to assert their authority first with a resolution or something along those lines.

 

[...]

Do you really not think that having to provide health insurance for an entire plant's worth of employees plays no part in the decision on where a company would build one? And if it is such a horrible thing, like we've been led to believe by most on the right, how is it that any plant has suvived, let alone been recently opened, in Canada, at all?

 

Your points do not seem to make sense together. Of course any business will consider NOT having to provide health insurance a bonus. But there are a ton of other factors involved just with labor alone, never mind regulations, taxes, and odd things like logistics.

 

What does Canada's socialized health care have to do with an auto plant surviving? You need to form your points a lot more cohesively. Canadian auto plants close down, too.

 

And as far as what a big meany Obama is to Big Business, most companies are sitting on record amounts of cash and have made record profits last year. How again is he stifling them?

 

Gee, you think uncertainty of the future might have anything to do with it? Over-regulation, high taxes, low consumer activity, Obama-care and all of the overhead it brings, security (national and international) uncertainties. Not to mention, these days it's easy to sick the sheeple and the media on businesses who disagree with the administration. That sort of facist-like behavior could potentially be as stifling as most of the other reasons combined. I have NO plans to expand/grow my business until "things" normalize - and they're far from normal right now.

[FogBat]

Gee, you think uncertainty of the future might have anything to do with it? Over-regulation, high taxes, low consumer activity, Obama-care and all of the overhead it brings, security (national and international) uncertainties. Not to mention, these days it's easy to sick the sheeple and the media on businesses who disagree with the administration. That sort of facist-like behavior could potentially be as stifling as most of the other reasons combined. I have NO plans to expand/grow my business until "things" normalize - and they're far from normal right now.

I had heard that there were a lot of small businesses that were not making plans to grow and expand because of the choking economic effects that Obamacare will have. Hearing this firsthand proves it.

[TrueBlueGED]

I had heard that there were a lot of small businesses that were not making plans to grow and expand because of the choking economic effects that Obamacare will have. Hearing this firsthand proves it.

 

Uncertainty is also a big part of it. Exactly how bad is it going to be? It's unclear until it actually happens, it may not be terrible, it may be abominable...but no business is going to make long-term planning decisions before they know exactly what they're dealing with. For what it's worth, businesses employing under-25 employees can get a tax credit for 35% of the premiums immediately, which increases to 50% in 2014. Unfortunately, most eligible small businesses have not applied for the credit (95% have not) because apparently it's a pain in the balls to apply for. source: http://news.investors.com/Article/591335/201111101851/Tax-Credit-For-Small-Business-Is-The-Latest-ObamaCare-Bust.htm

[fan2456]

Uncertainty is also a big part of it. Exactly how bad is it going to be? It's unclear until it actually happens, it may not be terrible, it may be abominable...but no business is going to make long-term planning decisions before they know exactly what they're dealing with. For what it's worth, businesses employing under-25 employees can get a tax credit for 35% of the premiums immediately, which increases to 50% in 2014. Unfortunately, most eligible small businesses have not applied for the credit (95% have not) because apparently it's a pain in the balls to apply for. source: http://news.investor...maCare-Bust.htm

 

I'm a small business and pay healthcare for my two employees 100%. Because their ours are 35 hours per week, I don't get any break.

[Eleven]

I'm a small business and pay healthcare for my two employees 100%. Because their ours are 35 hours per week, I don't get any break.

 

I would recommend a better accountant and a better proofreader.

[TrueBlueGED]

I'm a small business and pay healthcare for my two employees 100%. Because their ours are 35 hours per week, I don't get any break.

 

Have you applied for this particular credit (or looked into it at least) and been told it only applies to full time employees? It seems to me that this credit was specifically included to help businesses like yours, and if it only applies to businesses with full time employees, well, that's fairly retarded. The important thing should be paying insurance for your employees, and if it's written to only apply to full time employees, that's an epic government failure.

[Taro T]

Have you applied for this particular credit (or looked into it at least) and been told it only applies to full time employees? It seems to me that this credit was specifically included to help businesses like yours, and if it only applies to businesses with full time employees, well, that's fairly retarded. The important thing should be paying insurance for your employees, and if it's written to only apply to full time employees, that's an epic government failure.

Have you reviewed this law and determined whether or not it only applies to businesses with full time employees? You're a bright guy, why don't you help out a fellow Sabres' fan? Part 2 Section 1421 only seems to be about 10 pages long, I'd be very shocked if you couldn't throw him a rope on this one.

[FogBat]

Have you applied for this particular credit (or looked into it at least) and been told it only applies to full time employees? It seems to me that this credit was specifically included to help businesses like yours, and if it only applies to businesses with full time employees, well, that's fairly retarded. The important thing should be paying insurance for your employees, and if it's written to only apply to full time employees, that's an epic government failure.

I'm not being critical of your post whatsoever. What keeps me SMH is that this is another card being added to the house of cards that just needs one slight breeze to bring the whole thing crashing down.

 

I guess what I don't understand is why certain things should have never been meddled with in the first place. Something so simple as health care has been tinkered and twisted so badly that everyone stands to lose in the long run (and "God" help you if you decide to be your own doctor!).

[nobody]

Constitutional interpretation is fun! (This isn't sarcasm, or me being snarky. I actually do really enjoy talking about the Constitution, what it says, what it means, how it applies to modern society, etc.) If 2 Senators show up, strike a gavel twice, then repeat the process every 3 days, what exactly is that?

 

Not taking any side - just a question.

Could those two senators have passed a bill as it would have 100% approval?

[TrueBlueGED]

Have you reviewed this law and determined whether or not it only applies to businesses with full time employees? You're a bright guy, why don't you help out a fellow Sabres' fan? Part 2 Section 1421 only seems to be about 10 pages long, I'd be very shocked if you couldn't throw him a rope on this one.

 

From what I'm gathering, there's 3 primary requirements for the tax credit. The small business must satisfy all 3 to be eligible.

--1: Must cover at least 50% of the health care premiums

--2: Must pay less than an average of $50,000 in wages per year (per employee)

--3: Have less than the equivalent of 25 full time employees. Part time employees count towards the credit.

 

This isn't to say that the application process isn't a bitch, or that it's worth it for every business (I'm certainly in no position to judge whether it's worth the time/effort to get for each eligible business). But based solely on the requirements, fan2456's business should be eligible, and in fact is one of the few businesses which should be eligible for the entire credit (it operates on a scale, the smaller the business the larger the credit is, such that only those under 10 employees are eligible for the entire thing).

 

 

Not taking any side - just a question.

Could those two senators have passed a bill as it would have 100% approval?

 

Technically a majority is required to conduct official business. However, the Senate operates under the assumption that there is always a majority present, unless a member questions this. If a Senator questions the presence of a majority, then a roll call is taken and if a majority is not present, then official business cannot be conducted. Two random Senators, however, could not simply vote on a bill during a pro forma session. Among other things, a bill has to go through the Rules Committee to actually get to a floor debate and/or vote. Absent the Rules Committee moving legislation to the floor, two random senators would be unable to vote on it themselves, regardless of whether they are considered a de facto majority present.