Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Obama's Legacy: The Economy, Presidential Orders, Etc.
#81
A legacy built on the pen is doomed to succumb to the pen ...

Quote:The interesting thing about executive orders is that they are built on faulty foundations.  They are more theoretical than factual.  An executive order can be ripped out from under itself just as quickly as it was signed.  

On day one of his presidency, Donald Trump will be able to shred and dispose of any executive order that Obama signed into law, making them 100 percent invalid.

I haven't checked the list above against what Trump has actually gotten done in the last week or so ... but I would expect nearly everything mentioned to have been ticked off by now ... it's almost as though his predecessor had used vanishing ink.

The things that a President does generally endures in actual legislation ... on that score, Obama's legacy has very little in the way of lasting substance.  His main signature legislative achievement is headed toward the dust bin ... probably within the year.  What exactly are they going to put on the shelves of his Presidential Library? ... unsold copies of Dreams of my Father?

[Image: Legacies.jpg]
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#82
(01-28-2017, 03:55 PM)mr_yak Wrote: A legacy built on the pen is doomed to succumb to the pen ...

Quote:The interesting thing about executive orders is that they are built on faulty foundations.  They are more theoretical than factual.  An executive order can be ripped out from under itself just as quickly as it was signed.  

On day one of his presidency, Donald Trump will be able to shred and dispose of any executive order that Obama signed into law, making them 100 percent invalid.

He's certainly right on that Jack.  Unless any of that was passed by congress, it is not a law, and can be rescinded at any time.  

But he mentions NAFTA as one of them.  It was my recollection that Bubba and most of the Dumbasses passed that into law before the turn of the century.  I'll have to look that up, but if so, it is a law that Trump cannot fool around with unless he has congresses approval.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#83
(01-28-2017, 03:55 PM)mr_yak Wrote: The things that a President does generally endures in actual legislation ... on that score, Obama's legacy has very little in the way of lasting substance.  His main signature legislative achievement is headed toward the dust bin ... probably within the year.  What exactly are they going to put on the shelves of his Presidential Library? ... unsold copies of Dreams of my Father?

Stephen Dinan states................
Quote:Over the course of his eight years, he has signed just 1,227 bills into law — less, even, than one-term Presidents Carter and George H.W. Bush.

Holy Cow, no wonder this country is such a bureaucratic boondoggle.  That many laws, and more, signed by individual presidents?   I'm beginning to get sick to my stomach.  S18

How about a constitutional amendment setting up a "Sunset" limit for ALL laws passed by congress and signed by the president. We probably have over a million laws on the books. Gah
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#84
(01-28-2017, 04:21 PM)John L Wrote: But he mentions NAFTA as one of them.  It was my recollection that Bubba and most of the Dumbasses passed that into law before the turn of the century.  I'll have to look that up, but if so, it is a law that Trump cannot fool around with unless he has congresses approval.

The Executive Branch has the Constitutional authority to negotiate treaties John, but to your point, they don't become real things until Congress ratifies them.  That's why Obama's other signature 'achievement' (The Iranian Deal) is not a 'real' treaty.  The other side can bitch and moan about "international law" all they want, but as far as the U.S. is concerned, that agreement can become null and void as quickly as any other Executive Order. 

If Trump is even fractionally more skilled at dealing with Congress, he'll be inordinately more successful in getting any renegotiated agreements ratified.  Obama, for the most part, never even tried.

John L Wrote:Stephen Dinan states................
Quote: Wrote:Over the course of his eight years, he has signed just 1,227 bills into law — less, even, than one-term Presidents Carter and George H.W. Bush.

Holy Cow, no wonder this country is such a bureaucratic boondoggle. That many laws, and more, signed by individual presidents? I'm beginning to get sick to my stomach. [Image: s18.gif]

It's not necessarily the number of laws, it's how they are implemented.  Even with fewer laws, the number of regulations virtually exploded during Obama's time in office.  The byzantine complexity is what really is mind boggling.  Hopefully this will be reversed.  If Trump is wise, he'll force Congress to take back the roll that it's abdicated in addressing how the laws they pass get applied ... instead of turning it over to vast armies of un-elected bureaucrats that spend their time crafting legal jigsaw puzzles to justify their own existence.

One of the the things that the left likes to trot out is that Obama's Executive Orders, however autocratic they were, were actually fewer in number than most modern President.  That may be so, but it's also a bit pathetic in a way.  With virtually nothing accomplished even with his signature on 1,227 laws, and most of his will expressed in a few vanishing Executive Orders, the major attribute of his legacy is likely to be that he got so very little accomplished in eight years ... and most of that is unlikely to endure more than another of a year or two ... and yet we still managed to spend something like $10 Trillion during is tenure ... (??) [Image: s18.gif] it's almost like some colossal blackout Vegas binge ... "I doubled the debt ... and all I got was this lousy T-shirt"
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#85
Jack, I was responding to your link about what Trump was going to do with the stroke of his pen.  The person states:

Quote:On day one of his presidency, Donald Trump will be able to shred and dispose of any executive order that Obama signed into law, making them 100 percent invalid.  

Here is a list of orders we can expect to see Trump handle immediately:

Trade- North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Negotiations

My point is that Trump cannot do Squat about NAFTA, whether he likes it or not.  Its a formal treaty that is already in the law.  So, it makes no sense for Mr. Justin Holcomb to even mention it. He would have to get congress to repeal it.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#86
(01-28-2017, 05:04 PM)John L Wrote: My point is that Trump cannot do Squat about NAFTA, whether he likes it or not.  Its a formal treaty that is already in the law.  So, it makes no sense for Mr. Justin Holcomb to even mention it.  He would have to get congress to repeal it.

It's not as cut and dried as you portray it John.

And Trump CAN do squat about it.  The agreement can probably be re-negotiated much more easily than it could be scrapped entirely.  And I don't think he has any intention of scrapping it entirely ... only getting a better deal.  And yes, absolutely, he should rely on Congress, but if he can get a better deal for the U.S. on the table, who ... other than some dense rabid Dem anti-Trumper is going to be stupid enough to vote against a better deal for the U.S.?  He and Trudeau are already discussing it.  If it's such a non starter, why is that happening John?

Mexico relies on the U.S. as a market for about 80% of their exports.  Nieto can carp all he wants.  But the fact is that he's in a p*ss poor bargaining position and he knows it.  Trump doesn't need an Executive Order to pull this off (and it would be silly to go that route), he requires only the Executive powers that the Constitution bestows with regards to international affairs of state. 

Even Obama made noises about renegotiation NAFTA ... but like so many other things, he never really got anything done about it.  I don't think this will be true of Trump.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#87
Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face is not a worthwhile proposition. Its a Lose-Lose any way it is viewed.

5 Reasons It's Not Smart For Trump To Treat Mexico As Our Enemy
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#88
It doesn't necessarily have to be a lose lose John.  We do have an important trade relationship with Mexico, but it comes at a steep cost.  Mexico has literally turned the degradation of our border security into it's largest industry ... even bigger than oil production.  Whatever we get from Mexico, we're ultimately paying for it with our own sovereignty.  How on earth do you manage to monetize that??  Bad idea, good idea ... Trump is engaging in something rarely seen, he's actually doing exactly what he said he would do during the campaign.  

I don't think this will devolve into a full blown trade war, but I do expect it to become a lot harder to traffic humans and drugs across our southern border as we do 'radical' things ... like enforcing existing laws.  I read an article about the border tunnels recently.  Mexico doesn't even bother to fill them like we do after they are discovered.  They cap them and the drug smugglers simply tap into them from a different location on the Mexican side saving them untold money and effort.  Would it really be so terrible if the Mexican government was actually incentivized to help us with the border rather than just continuing to exploit it's permeability?  We're in the midst of an opioid epidemic that is killing more Americans than traffic accidents.  Nearly all of it comes across that border ... yet somehow nobody really seems to be talking about it.  Is that something that should be considered an acceptable cost for making nice nice with our Southern neighbor?

Mexico itself is suffering the effects of the trafficking and is fighting a bloody battle with organized criminals. It's difficult to imagine that degrading those gangs by interrupting their illicit cash flow is going to be anything but helpful. Or that a reduction in the bloodshed is going to be anything but popular with the people that are enduring it. Or that the nation itself won't be more stabilized when the violence gets tamped down.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#89
(01-29-2017, 12:33 AM)mr_yak Wrote: It doesn't necessarily have to be a lose lose John.  We do have an important trade relationship with Mexico, but it comes at a steep cost.  Mexico has literally turned the degradation of our border security into it's largest industry ... even bigger than oil production.  Whatever we get from Mexico, we're ultimately paying for it with our own sovereignty.  How on earth do you manage to monetize that??  Bad idea, good idea ... Trump is engaging in something rarely seen, he's actually doing exactly what he said he would do during the campaign.  

Jack, are you saying that this situation was also as bad, BEFORE MacDaddy entered office?  Or is it just possible that the problem is MacDaddy's fault, and he failed to enforce existing laws?

(01-29-2017, 12:33 AM)mr_yak Wrote: I don't think this will devolve into a full blown trade war, but I do expect it to become a lot harder to traffic humans and drugs across our southern border as we do 'radical' things ... like enforcing existing laws.  I read an article about the border tunnels recently.  Mexico doesn't even bother to fill them like we do after they are discovered.  They cap them and the drug smugglers simply tap into them from a different location on the Mexican side saving them untold money and effort.  Would it really be so terrible if the Mexican government was actually incentivized to help us with the border rather than just continuing to exploit it's permeability?  We're in the midst of an opioid epidemic that is killing more Americans than traffic accidents.  Nearly all of it comes across that border ... yet somehow nobody really seems to be talking about it.  Is that something that should be considered an acceptable cost for making nice nice with our Southern neighbor?

If I recall correctly, the drug trade business began in Colombia, and moved to Mexico, without the overt, or covert, help of either government.  Further, this Huge drug trade is going on, not just because there be drugs available for others to savor, but mainly because there is such a huge demand for them,......from guess where.  That's right, this is part of the business cycle, i.e. Supply-Demand.  We are every bit as responsible for this fiasco, which is sapping our moral strength and funds as well.  In other words, we are our own worst enemy here.  So, why are we blaming Mexico for something they are just barely able to contain, all because there are millions of willing patrons north of their border?

Perhaps we may need to adapt a different approach to how we handle this 'so called' War on Drugs,....which we have been losing from day one.  Don't you agree?

(01-29-2017, 12:33 AM)mr_yak Wrote: Mexico itself is suffering the effects of the trafficking and is fighting a bloody battle with organized criminals.  It's difficult to imagine that degrading those gangs by interrupting their illicit cash flow is going to be anything but helpful.  Or that a reduction in the bloodshed is going to be anything but popular with the people that are enduring it.  Or that the nation itself won't be more stabilized when the violence gets tamped down.

Then perhaps we should be actively assisting them, instead of pointing the finger of blame at them.   Especially when they are dog paddling like crazy just to keep their heads above water.  And Trump is helping all this?  

Again, All this is Lose-Lose for all sides.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#90
This Chad Prather fellow really does cut to the chase and nail the wonderful things that MacDaddy will be remembered for accomplishing. Let me see, the first one should be.................... Tell you what, let him tell you about it all. He's better at this than I am anyway. S13

Farewell Mr. President


___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#91
Looking at several of the posts above, there is much conversation of undoing Obama's Executive Orders. However, much of what he did was just selective indifference to existing laws. If he didn't like it, he just ignored it. Much of what Trump needs to do is to find all these languishing laws already in existence - and just acknowledge they exist. Most are probably good laws, if Obama ignored them. The really bad ones he can leave unknown so far as I care. Modern Day's new blue laws?

There are way too many laws on the books, but Obama had a way of finding the bad ones and making them worse.
Reply
#92
That drug fueled war in Mexico and that was in Colombia for a generation would get defunded if the USA legalized drugs, just saying.
Reply
#93
(03-21-2017, 10:25 AM)Palladin Wrote: That drug fueled war in Mexico and that was in Colombia for a generation would get defunded if the USA legalized drugs, just saying.

No argument here. Just hold every single adult responsible for his/her own actions, and treat this as the law does with minors and alcohol.

Will it eliminate drugs? Not only no but Hell No! But what we are doing to society and liberties are far worse. Hold everyone accountable for their actions. The Bible says this countless times. And all the 'do gooder' attempts at telling others what they can and cannot do is counterproductive.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#94
Of course it won't eliminate drugs, not at all. It will eliminate the profits going to violent criminals instead of Walgreens. Not something the vast majority of Americans desire and it's difficult to understand why they don't care.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Obama's Economy mr_yak 31 2,453 04-06-2013, 08:41 PM
Last Post: Gunnen4u
  Army refuses Obama's orders? mv 2 422 12-27-2009, 04:34 PM
Last Post: Palladin
  The Obama Legacy, How Great Will He Be? Thaiquila 28 2,847 11-13-2008, 11:00 AM
Last Post: JohnWho

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)