quade 4 #1 December 31, 2012 Here's what's wrong with Congress. I've worked for a couple of companies where if there was a crisis and things absolutely needed to get done by a deadline, you stayed and finished the damn job. It didn't matter what holiday it was, it didn't matter if the supply guy hadn't delivered the thing you needed to do your part of the job yet, you stayed until the damn job was done. What the hell is this bullshit of dismissing for the day, going off to parties and coming back tomorrow?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #2 December 31, 2012 Its beyond a jokeWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cvfd1399 0 #3 December 31, 2012 Obama said last week he was ready to "Get serious" about this. If he was really serious, he wouldn't have gone to Hawaii, and he would have had all their asses at work from the day he said that till the day they had a REAL fix for the problem. I guarantee anything they come up with will be a drop in the bucket on the problem, just kicking the can down the road. They CANT tax us out of this only. Even if they take all the assets of the rich they are looking to raise taxes on it wont even dent the problem. They must stop the wars, stop handing out cash to every country, entitlement program, undeserving citizen, fraudulent earmark etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BigMikeH77 0 #4 December 31, 2012 It seems to me more like one kid taking their toys and going home. And that's really what we're dealing with here on both sides - a bunch of selfish kids. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #5 December 31, 2012 QuoteObama said last week he was ready to "Get serious" about this. If he was really serious, he . . . Would have signed an Executive Order to hold Congress in a room until they came up with a solution. The President, can go anywhere he damn well pleases for Christmas because all HE does is sign the final document.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cvfd1399 0 #6 December 31, 2012 He is the leader, you of all people know know you lead by example. Rally the troops, stop the bickering, lead people down the right path, etc. You cant possibly think he has no influence on these people, and is just a man behind a pen and that's all he can do about this. Do you ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #7 December 31, 2012 He's been leading his people since day one. The opposition has simply been saying no. The problem in the US doesn't reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but down the street on Capitol Hill.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #8 December 31, 2012 QuoteHe's been leading his people since day one. The opposition has simply been saying no. Earlier you said that all his job is is to sign the final document. However, I do agree with you that they should be sticking around. But nothing stands in the way of money, power, alcohol, sex and drugs in Congress. Nothing. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #9 December 31, 2012 QuoteQuoteObama said last week he was ready to "Get serious" about this. If he was really serious, he . . . Would have signed an Executive Order to hold Congress in a room until they came up with a solution. The President, can go anywhere he damn well pleases for Christmas because all HE does is sign the final document. true, but if he'd forced them to stay and work while he went on vacation, what kind of leadership is that? The kind we've come to expect from a president, and that's wrong.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #10 December 31, 2012 I know you and others really, REALLY, want to make this the a problem of the President, but get real...it's CONGRESS.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #11 December 31, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteObama said last week he was ready to "Get serious" about this. If he was really serious, he . . . Would have signed an Executive Order to hold Congress in a room until they came up with a solution. The President, can go anywhere he damn well pleases for Christmas because all HE does is sign the final document. true, but if he'd forced them to stay and work while he went on vacation, what kind of leadership is that? The kind we've come to expect from a president, and that's wrong. Does the President have the Constitutional power to issue an executive order forcing a co-equal branch of the government to remain locked in a room until they agree with his policies? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #12 January 1, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteObama said last week he was ready to "Get serious" about this. If he was really serious, he . . . Would have signed an Executive Order to hold Congress in a room until they came up with a solution. The President, can go anywhere he damn well pleases for Christmas because all HE does is sign the final document. true, but if he'd forced them to stay and work while he went on vacation, what kind of leadership is that? The kind we've come to expect from a president, and that's wrong. Does the President have the Constitutional power to issue an executive order forcing a co-equal branch of the government to remain locked in a room until they agree with his policies? Your argument almost made sense until the last three words. No. He wouldn't be asking for that. He'd be asking for for what the entire country ought to be vocally demanding right this very moment; to negotiate. Simply saying "no" to every proposal, including their own, isn't negotiating. It's ridiculous.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #13 January 1, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteObama said last week he was ready to "Get serious" about this. If he was really serious, he . . . Would have signed an Executive Order to hold Congress in a room until they came up with a solution. The President, can go anywhere he damn well pleases for Christmas because all HE does is sign the final document. true, but if he'd forced them to stay and work while he went on vacation, what kind of leadership is that? The kind we've come to expect from a president, and that's wrong. Does the President have the Constitutional power to issue an executive order forcing a co-equal branch of the government to remain locked in a room until they agree with his policies? Your argument almost made sense until the last three words. No. He wouldn't be asking for that. He'd be asking for for what the entire country ought to be vocally demanding right this very moment; to negotiate. Simply saying "no" to every proposal, including their own, isn't negotiating. It's ridiculous. I'm not making an argument ...I'm asking a question. Can the President hold Congress hostage until they produce a bill he is willing to sign? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #14 January 1, 2013 QuoteI'm not making an argument ...I'm asking a question. Can the President hold Congress hostage until they produce a bill he is willing to sign? I guess it depends on how you define a threat to the US, but I think a case could be made. I know for certain the Speaker of the House can compel members to stay. Where was Boehner today?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #15 January 1, 2013 QuoteHere's what's wrong with Congress. I've worked for a couple of companies where if there was a crisis and things absolutely needed to get done by a deadline, you stayed and finished the damn job. There are two reasonable ways to look at congress. 1. It's a hobby business not a full time job. The average successful senate campaign costs over $10,000,000 for a six year term which is about $1.7M per year. The average successful house race costs $1.5M for a two year term or $750K per year. The positions pay $174K. Where a position pays about 1/10th to 1/5th what it costs it's not a job. The Federal government takes in $2.9T in revenues each year. That's $29B per senator or $6.7B per representative. People responsible for that sort of money in private industry don't have just six or seven digits in their salary. Many people working that far below market wages are doing it part time for fun to keep themselves busy after retiring. 2. Their employer is not the people. The campaign contributors spending 5-10X congress peoples' salary can be viewed as their actual employers. While the people don't benefit from these shenanigans, the congress critters' employers (the 0.4% of private individuals making campaign contributions large enough to mandate FEC reporting, the bulk of which for some candidates are at the statutory $2500 per person per race (primary and election) or $10K/cycle per couple limit) do. Obama isn't going to cave before we go over the fiscal cliff and his 33% increase on capital gains means a lot more to the Congress creatures' bosses than the slight savings a compromise would net on their first $250K - $1M in income. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #16 January 1, 2013 QuoteQuoteI'm not making an argument ...I'm asking a question. Can the President hold Congress hostage until they produce a bill he is willing to sign? I guess it depends on how you define a threat to the US, but I think a case could be made. I know for certain the Speaker of the House can compel members to stay. Where was Boehner today? "..threat to the US". In that context why couldn't he simply bypass Congress altogether and issue an EO mandating the tax rates and promises of future spending cuts as he sees fit? ...assuming a threat to the US, and all. Besides, it looks as if they have reached an agreement with regard to taxes. The problem seems now to be with the spending cuts. Obviously, one side is not compromising. I'd like to see the details. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #17 January 1, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteI'm not making an argument ...I'm asking a question. Can the President hold Congress hostage until they produce a bill he is willing to sign? I guess it depends on how you define a threat to the US, but I think a case could be made. I know for certain the Speaker of the House can compel members to stay. Where was Boehner today? "..threat to the US". In that context why couldn't he simply bypass Congress altogether and issue an EO mandating the tax rates and promises of future spending cuts as he sees fit? ...assuming a threat to the US, and all. Besides, it looks as if they have reached an agreement with regard to taxes. The problem seems now to be with the spending cuts. Obviously, one side is not compromising. I'd like to see the details. Suggest you read the Constitution to see who can do what, who must do what, and who cannot do what.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #18 January 1, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI'm not making an argument ...I'm asking a question. Can the President hold Congress hostage until they produce a bill he is willing to sign? I guess it depends on how you define a threat to the US, but I think a case could be made. I know for certain the Speaker of the House can compel members to stay. Where was Boehner today? "..threat to the US". In that context why couldn't he simply bypass Congress altogether and issue an EO mandating the tax rates and promises of future spending cuts as he sees fit? ...assuming a threat to the US, and all. Besides, it looks as if they have reached an agreement with regard to taxes. The problem seems now to be with the spending cuts. Obviously, one side is not compromising. I'd like to see the details. Suggest you read the Constitution to see who can do what, who must do what, and who cannot do what. Read it. So, in response to quade's post #5 -- ("...If he was really serious, he . . . Would have signed an Executive Order to hold Congress in a room until they came up with a solution.") the answer is "no", he cannot do that. He might (questionable, IMO) have the power to bypass Congress and issue an executive order to implement any tax and spending changes but he can't force Congress, by executive order, to do it ...or to submit any bill, for that matter. BTW, I thought the Clinton tax rates were the salvation of the country, and no one is really going to cut any spending anyway, so what's all the hubbub? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #19 January 1, 2013 Well, you clearly read it wrong then. The President can detain people who are threats to the US, but CONGRESS and only Congress can levy taxes.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #20 January 1, 2013 QuoteWell, you clearly read it wrong then. The President can detain people who are threats to the US, but CONGRESS and only Congress can levy taxes. I'm not sure what part is wrong. The President cannot force Congress to submit bills and I doubt he has the power to issue an EO levying taxes. Which of these is wrong? And who, in this case, is a threat to the US requiring detention by the POTUS? (opinions here might vary). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #21 January 1, 2013 QuoteI know you and others really, REALLY, want to make this the a problem of the President, but get real...it's CONGRESS. you assume what I would like to do. I agree that this was the problem of congress. My point was, it's poor leadership to demand that the underlings stay onsite to do something then vacate the premises. But that's the kind of leadership we've come to expect out of the office of the president over the past 20+ years. It's sad.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #22 January 1, 2013 Quote Does the President have the Constitutional power to issue an executive order forcing a co-equal branch of the government to remain locked in a room until they agree with his policies? don't know, and wasn't my point. I would be bad leadership to demand such a thing and then leave. I've worked for managers who have done that, and I've worked for the kind that stick around (even if they can't help). I know which kind I felt was a better leader.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #23 January 1, 2013 QuoteQuote Does the President have the Constitutional power to issue an executive order forcing a co-equal branch of the government to remain locked in a room until they agree with his policies? don't know, and wasn't my point. I would be bad leadership to demand such a thing and then leave. I've worked for managers who have done that, and I've worked for the kind that stick around (even if they can't help). I know which kind I felt was a better leader. I really wasn't responding specifically to your post. ..only commenting on quades comment re: executive order to force Congress to stay. Congress doesn't answer to the President. An argument can be made, though, that he answers to them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #24 January 1, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteObama said last week he was ready to "Get serious" about this. If he was really serious, he . . . Would have signed an Executive Order to hold Congress in a room until they came up with a solution. The President, can go anywhere he damn well pleases for Christmas because all HE does is sign the final document. true, but if he'd forced them to stay and work while he went on vacation, what kind of leadership is that? The kind we've come to expect from a president, and that's wrong. Does the President have the Constitutional power to issue an executive order forcing a co-equal branch of the government to remain locked in a room until they agree with his policies? Sort of; although the specifics are subject to some interpretation. Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution says: [the President] may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper.... I haven't looked up whether there are any factual scenario-specific cases interpreting this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #25 January 1, 2013 Quote........ Does the President have the Constitutional power to issue an executive order forcing a co-equal branch of the government to remain locked in a room until they agree with his policies? Sort of; although the specifics are subject to some interpretation. Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution says: [the President] may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper.... I haven't looked up whether there are any factual scenario-specific cases interpreting this. I saw the key phrase here being "on extraordinary Occasions". There is nothing "extraordinary" here. Only taxation and spending policies. Parties and Houses and Presidents have always disagreed here. I also wonder if this has ever applied. Also: "...and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper". This looks like if the Pres. convenes both Houses, and they disagree on a time, then he will appoint the time they will convene ...but only for an "extraordinary Occasion". So, yes, I suppose he can "force" Congress to convene (not necessarily pass some piece of legislation as directed by him or his policies) in some unspecified special circumstance. But, by "agree with his policies" I meant the President can't force the Congress to present him with a bill that he, himself, might have written. IOW- they are not bound to present a bill that caters to his wishes. (not sure if my meaning here is clear.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
