11-14-2013 07:34 PM
749 ... 45678 ...
tools
  1. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    In response to the whole conversation:

    There are 2 theologies for how elected officials should act after elected:
    1. They represent the will of those that elected them.
    2. They were elected on merit of their views/character, and whatever they decide is best.

    Different people/politicians have different views on each. Neither is wrong per say. Just 2 different ways to look at it.
    1) I think applies to Congress mostly
    2) I think applies to the President.

    The two are not mutually exclusive and there is some overlap, but I believe the President has a responsibility to what he believes is in the best interest of the country, while Congress is more directly responsible for representing the views of their constituents.

    Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 4
    10-10-2013 08:59 AM
  2. llamabreath's Avatar
    No, he's supposed to do what he thinks is best, not chase poll results around. He was already elected. That was "the will of it's citizens".

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4
    With this line of thinking, there is no need for -

    Congressmen/women

    Governors

    Checks

    Balances

    nor speedbumps.


    Hardly a democracy.





    Sent via a pay phone at the gas station.
    10-10-2013 09:47 AM
  3. pappy53's Avatar
    What can the POTUS do (not sure why commander in chief is in quotes, but that's not his function in this case anyways, so non-issue)
    No, it is not a non-issue. The President has the option to enact anything during a shutdown that he deems an emergency, and this would seem to fit that description. And yes, 5 minutes is basically all it would take for his signature. He does not need approval.
    Commander-in-Chief in quotes is sarcasm.
    10-10-2013 10:28 AM
  4. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    With this line of thinking, there is no need for -

    Congressmen/women

    Governors

    Checks

    Balances

    nor speedbumps.


    Hardly a democracy.





    •• Sent via a pay phone at the gas station.
    You're taking what I said out of context and adding to it. I never said take anything away. Nor did I say he CAN do what he wants. Actually, in a different comment I specified that we have checks and balances specifically so he can't literally do whatever he wants.

    But nice try. :P
    10-10-2013 11:06 AM
  5. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    No, it is not a non-issue. The President has the option to enact anything during a shutdown that he deems an emergency, and this would seem to fit that description. And yes, 5 minutes is basically all it would take for his signature. He does not need approval.
    Commander-in-Chief in quotes is sarcasm.
    I think the point of the comment that you specifically quoted was that his function as Commander-In-Chief is a separate role from POTUS, in that one is a reference to his role as commander of the Armed Forces, and the other to his general duties as the holder of the office. It's hard to explain, but I think you get what I'm saying.
    10-10-2013 11:08 AM
  6. llamabreath's Avatar
    .... But nice try. :P





    Sent via a pay phone at the gas station.
    10-10-2013 11:15 AM
  7. pappy53's Avatar
    I think the point of the comment that you specifically quoted was that his function as Commander-In-Chief is a separate role from POTUS, in that one is a reference to his role as commander of the Armed Forces, and the other to his general duties as the holder of the office. It's hard to explain, but I think you get what I'm saying.
    Semantics aside, I think you know what I am saying. A stroke of his pen is all that it takes, so why doesn't he do it?
    10-10-2013 11:44 AM
  8. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    Semantics aside, I think you know what I am saying. A stroke of his pen is all that it takes, so why doesn't he do it?
    So, I just read THIS. I'm trying to find the law that states that he can just decide to fund that. If such a law does exist, then why is it ok to fund some things but not always with the "stroke of a pen"? I'm speaking generally of course. I would think that a law that says "the President can decide to spend money on whatever he wants" would fly in the face of checks and balances, unless it's extremely specific and only applies to times of a government shut down. Which would then beg the question of "where are the limits with what he can decide to spend money on?" I'm not saying that it's not possible, but if he can just declare something as "essential" (like the Mayor of DC) then why didn't he just declare every single part of the government essential and make this whole argument a moot point?

    Or do we know for an absolute FACT that he has a piece of legislation sitting on his desk ready to go to provide funding for this program?
    10-10-2013 12:01 PM
  9. H3aTeRzz's Avatar
    Its Bush's Fault!!!
    10-10-2013 01:21 PM
  10. H3aTeRzz's Avatar
    10-10-2013 01:26 PM
  11. pappy53's Avatar
    From the San Diego Union Tribune:

    On Wednesday, CNN reported that on Sept. 27, days before the shutdown began, the Pentagon was already telling reporters it planned to suspend death benefits.

    So for two weeks, the Obama administration has been anticipating this nightmare would come to pass — and did nothing to pre-empt it. Only when the Pentagon began denying death benefits and the backlash began did the White House realize this ploy was a political misstep and seek a fix.

    It is an appalling commentary on the president and his administration that they chose to bully the families of dead American soldiers for perceived political gain.
    H3aTeRzz likes this.
    10-10-2013 01:27 PM
  12. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    From the San Diego Union Tribune:

    On Wednesday, CNN reported that on Sept. 27, days before the shutdown began, the Pentagon was already telling reporters it planned to suspend death benefits.

    So for two weeks, the Obama administration has been anticipating this nightmare would come to pass — and did nothing to pre-empt it. Only when the Pentagon began denying death benefits and the backlash began did the White House realize this ploy was a political misstep and seek a fix.

    It is an appalling commentary on the president and his administration that they chose to bully the families of dead American soldiers for perceived political gain.
    So again I ask, where's the law that says Obama just decide to spend that money? This also tells me that Congress also knew about it, and didn't push through legislation to take care of the problem. Both sides chose to do nothing.

    Two sides to everything, with the crux of the argument being that without it already being a law nobody can force the expenditure of funds. So, until someone can link to the law that says Obama can just decide to spend money without the approval of Congress you're just skirting around the questions I asked.
    10-10-2013 01:45 PM
  13. pappy53's Avatar
    So again I ask, where's the law that says Obama just decide to spend that money? This also tells me that Congress also knew about it, and didn't push through legislation to take care of the problem. Both sides chose to do nothing.
    Actually, Congress did pass a military spending bill, and it was enacted, but the DOD says that it did not include death benefits. Repubs and Dems in Congress are saying that the DOD is being too technical, and that they thought that this issue was resolved with the bill.
    10-10-2013 02:12 PM
  14. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    Actually, Congress did pass a military spending bill, and it was enacted, but the DOD says that it did not include death benefits. Repubs and Dems in Congress are saying that the DOD is being too technical, and that they thought that this issue was resolved with the bill.
    So then what would be the solution? Seems that the problem is with interpretation of the law then. I would think DOJ could solve that....or another small bill specifically addressing the issue could be passed. Since they agreed on it before they should agree on it again.


    That doesn't really directly address my question, though. I'm not sure the President (no matter who it is) can interpret a law. I think we have a branch of government for that, right? I also guess the interpretation could change and then go unchallenged and stand as is.
    10-10-2013 02:16 PM
  15. pappy53's Avatar
    10-10-2013 02:46 PM
  16. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    I agree. It needs to be passed.
    10-10-2013 03:14 PM
  17. JW4VZW's Avatar
    Unfortunately you are correct, sarcasm or not. The minute someone goes after Obama or a policy Wolf Blitzer or someone alike is pulling the race card.
    You are very correct. It is a sad day when one speaks the truth, and gets called a racist for doing so.
    H3aTeRzz likes this.
    10-10-2013 05:03 PM
  18. msndrstood's Avatar
    I hope that wasn't directed at me.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3 now Free
    10-10-2013 05:46 PM
  19. pappy53's Avatar
    You are very correct. It is a sad day when one speaks the truth, and gets called a racist for doing so.
    Dens are quick to pull the race card.
    10-10-2013 05:54 PM
  20. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    You are very correct. It is a sad day when one speaks the truth, and gets called a racist for doing so.
    Refresh my memory. What's this truth you speak of?

    Dens are quick to pull the race card.
    So you're telling me that only goes one way?

    That the other side doesn't bring it up with negative connotations?

    Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 4
    10-10-2013 08:28 PM
  21. Fairclough's Avatar
    And I suppose that the money that the government subsidies just come out of thin air? No, everyone else in the country pays for the education. The government has no money of its own, it only delegates the use of money that it takes from citizens. Anything that is "free" or "cheaper" is someone else paying for it.

    In the US i am predicting that the higher education bubble to pop here in the next few years. Prices cannot continue to rise while the value of the average degree not move. One of the main reasons prices have gotten so bad is because the Government provides "free" loans to anyone that will take one. These loans are usually lumped into "financial aid" and many times students think they are scholarships. Then people graduate from college with all this debt that they did know they had.
    If you have ever done micro economics you would know about externalities. What the means to the individual there is no additional benefit, however to the community there is thus it pushes the demand curve out to the right. Some governments value these degrees so much they make it no cost for the student, however most governments will subside the difference between the externalities value and the value the students are willing to pay, thus than you can get an equilibrium which all parties are suffice with. What are these positive externalities from education? Although they take many forms, they can essentially be classified into two types of arguments. First, some argue that education increases civic engagement and thereby contributes to a stable and democratic society. The second argument is that an educated workforce is vital for the creation and adoption of new technologies considered to contribute to research and development (R & D), innovation and technical change, which in turn are the major factors contributing to productivity increase, and thus to the society’s economic well-being. Higher education is also attributed to lower crime rates etc.

    Secondly, as for private schools receiving funding - if all the private schools went into the public system - it would cost the government a significantly more the than fund these students. The average student costs $20,000 to educate a year. Governments may give private schools $10,000 per student. Why because it works out to be a $10,000 savings.
    In reality no. He was elected because the majority believed that his idea of what's right was shared by them.

    He should worry, but he doesn't have to worry.

    Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 4
    I 100% Agree on this. A politician should not necessary do what is wanted by the people but their best interest for the community as a whole. This is were our countries diverge, Ignore the topic on this but watch from 1:30 onwards and it compares the policies of our politicians ( )

    I believe a lot of people in this thread is taking the Jim Manly approach, "Supporting legislation is political suicide, so you have to think long and hard before taking them on." While I believe politicians should take Rob's, former Queensland (most conservative state) Premiers, openly passed legislation knowing he will be voted out. "We paid a high political price but we did the right thing, there are australians who are alive today because we took the actions."

    Once again we can compare them again Jim Manly (US) states success "is getting re-elected by his constituents, second would be getting legislation done"... what does rob say "Making society a better place, your responsibility to do what is in the best interest". The point I am trying to drive home, is many politicians fear of "loosing good men" (Jim) rather than enacting legislation which will benefit society even if it is a politician night mare. The video i did link was about gun control, so don't shot me down. This was enacted by the conservative party, were they're members knew they would be likely to loose many seats (they just won the next election than served for almost 12 years after passing it). They even wore bullet proof vests doing it, why because they knew there voters might not stand for it but it was in their best interest. Now a few years later, heads have turned and thought. Wow it was for the best interest even though we hated it at the time.

    Similar went with our economic stimulus package, if the government listened to the citizens we would of not been the best performing economy during and after the recession. Why? Often the citizens are not as educated as those in power. I am not sure about the US (exception with Obama, apparently lecturing at Havard for constitutional law) but the majority of our Poli's are from former economist lawyer backgrounds. We vote them in for knowledge to do what is best. An average joe citizen will not know as well as they are how to handle the legal or economic ramifications, thus we empower them to make choices. To those who say a government should do what the citizens stictly say and not for the best interest of the people... I ask. Would you let a person of the street, with no experience, no education make your career decisions in your job? Lets say if you were a stock broker, would you let someone who has no knowledge choose what to invest in. Probably not, your hired to use your knowledge to make the best choices. Same with a government, they are hired to make the best decisions with their knowledge.
    So then what would be the solution? Seems that the problem is with interpretation of the law then. I would think DOJ could solve that....or another small bill , specifically addressing the issue could be passed. Since they agreed on it before they should agree on it again.


    That doesn't really directly address my question, though. I'm not sure the President (no matter who it is) can interpret a law. I think we have a branch of government for that, right? I also guess the interpretation could change and then go unchallenged and stand as is.
    My best guess is to look up and see if the states has an act similar to our Statue Interpretations Act 1901/1954/1987. Which helps to clarify the law, generally over here this is interpreted by the High court, granted that the words in the long an enactment title, statue, second reading in parliament when passing the law and extrinsic information wording permits. E.g. If they used ambiguous wording action might not be able to be taken.
    10-10-2013 08:37 PM
  22. pappy53's Avatar
    So you're telling me that only goes one way?

    That the other side doesn't bring it up with negative connotations?
    It would be crazy to say that it only goes one way, but it is the Dems that do it 90% of the time. Watch MSNBC, and you will see a lot of it. They even have one of the biggest racists in the country as a host on his own show, which is Al Sharpton. He is the epitome of racism. Also, he is a "Reverend", but won't use "under God" in his Pledge of Allegiance. What's up with that?
    10-10-2013 09:14 PM
  23. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    It would be crazy to say that it only goes one way, but it is the Dems that do it 90% of the time. Watch MSNBC, and you will see a lot of it. They even have one of the biggest racists in the country as a host on his own show, which is Al Sharpton. He is the epitome of racism. Also, he is a "Reverend", but won't use "under God" in his Pledge of Allegiance. What's up with that?
    Oh I'm not defending it either way.

    Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 4
    10-10-2013 09:31 PM
  24. Aquila's Avatar
    It would be crazy to say that it only goes one way, but it is the Dems that do it 90% of the time. Watch MSNBC, and you will see a lot of it. They even have one of the biggest racists in the country as a host on his own show, which is Al Sharpton. He is the epitome of racism. Also, he is a "Reverend", but won't use "under God" in his Pledge of Allegiance. What's up with that?
    Racism sucks pretty much no matter who says it. But it's worse when politicians and media pundits use it, because they're adding slime on top of their hatred. About the only thing worse is people reciting their nonsense, instead of pushing back against it.
    msndrstood likes this.
    10-10-2013 09:38 PM
  25. Scott7217's Avatar
    Let them laugh. Especially until they need money or someone tries to invade them.
    This is true. Americans donate generously to other countries through both public and private donations. The US is also a huge market that no country can afford to ignore.

    As for the military side, the world also depends on the US to be a global police officer. For example, if it weren't for the US Navy, it would be difficult to keep the shipping lanes open for international trade.
    H3aTeRzz likes this.
    10-10-2013 10:30 PM
749 ... 45678 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Changing battery's better to shutdown the S4?
    By Nuno Mota in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-02-2013, 12:15 PM
  2. 4.3 random shutdown
    By talsi_st in forum Google / Samsung Galaxy Nexus
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-21-2013, 12:45 AM
  3. samsung s4 shutdown "help"
    By Shatha816 in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-27-2013, 07:46 AM
  4. Government Notifications & the Skyrocket
    By SpringCTIL in forum Samsung Galaxy S II Skyrocket
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-23-2013, 05:50 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD