Politics

[Ndaccountant]

Warmer than average weather means that there is more farmable land and crops can be planted and harvested further into the year. I've read this as one of the benefits of warming trends. I'll say that human pollution isn't helping anything. But it seems like a combination of hysteria and hubris to assume that human activity could have such a serious impact on something as complex and multi-faceted as the global climate. The earth has gone through massive climate changes in the past, and didn't require our contributions. So we are to believe that "this time it's different?" It wouldn't be happening without us? I'm not outright denying it, but I still remain very skeptical.

Could be wrong, but I took his post to mean that by using ethanol, food prices have risen as a result. I do believe that in 2012, the UN urged the US to reduce ethanol mandates.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Ethanol use most likely increases CO2 emissions, on a net basis. Converting land from consumption agriculture to ethanol production increases CO2 by such an amount that it takes about ~90+ years for car usage to offset that increase.

(Not taking into account any increase in food prices that would incentivize would-be farmers to cut down trees for food production.)

 

[Cackalacky]

Warmer than average weather means that there is more farmable land and crops can be planted and harvested further into the year. I've read this as one of the benefits of warming trends. I'll say that human pollution isn't helping anything. But it seems like a combination of hysteria and hubris to assume that human activity could have such a serious impact on something as complex and multi-faceted as the global climate. The earth has gone through massive climate changes in the past, and didn't require our contributions. So we are to believe that "this time it's different?" It wouldn't be happening without us? I'm not outright denying it, but I still remain very skeptical.

The bolded is unfounded and at most only true for specific areas of the world and very specific crops. Many crops are sensitive to temperatures and more extreme weather. Droughts are becoming more common place and last longer, particularly in places that were not previously prone to droughts. Additionally, population increases have put a significant strain on the demand for general food crops (wheat, rice, corn, soy beans etc), not just those needed to make "food products." The production of these crops are generally inflexible so any change or loss of production can ripple throughout the food chain and raise prices concurrently. This can also lead to political and social strife (destabilization) in countries who subsist on the four major crops. There are some areas which do not appear to have been impacted so far such as the US and others that netted positive, but the overall trend in the major markets for the 4 major staples are a net loss in production and revenue. So far I understand that the effect of climate change is small and price changes are more economic and market driven at this time; however I read a study showing losses in the billions for big 4 crop sales (2011).

RE: Ethanol.
I remember reading something about corn for use in ethanol production was being sold at higher fees which was driving up the overall cost on corn which is typically used for agricultural feed and food products. That was a while ago though and not sure if it is still the case.

 

[Black Irish]

I'm not arguing in favor of corn ethanol production. That is a bad-on-multiple-levels program. One of the problems associated with it is that many farms are just planting corn to get in on the action, rather than rotating through a number of crops. That could be just as much to blame for the lower output of the four major crops that Cack mentioned above. You don't need to blame global warming for a drop-off in crop production when you can easily blame farmers for putting all their eggs in one (ethanol) basket rather than rounding out their production.

Of course, if we're really serious about ethanol, we could lower trade barriers regarding sugar and import Brazil's sugar cane based ethanol, which is a legitimate competitor with gasoline down there.

 

[Cackalacky]

Could be wrong, but I took his post to mean that by using ethanol, food prices have risen as a result. I do believe that in 2012, the UN urged the US to reduce ethanol mandates.

Ethanol use most likely increases CO2 emissions, on a net basis. Converting land from consumption agriculture to ethanol production increases CO2 by such an amount that it takes about ~90+ years for car usage to offset that increase.

(Not taking into account any increase in food prices that would incentivize would-be farmers to cut down trees for food production.)

The bolded is unfounded and at most only true for specific areas of the world and very specific crops. Many crops are sensitive to temperatures and more extreme weather. Droughts are becoming more common place and last longer, particularly in places that were not previously prone to droughts. Additionally, population increases have put a significant strain on the demand for general food crops (wheat, rice, corn, soy beans etc), not just those needed to make "food products." The production of these crops are generally inflexible so any change or loss of production can ripple throughout the food chain and raise prices concurrently. This can also lead to political and social strife (destabilization) in countries who subsist on the four major crops. There are some areas which do not appear to have been impacted so far such as the US and others that netted positive, but the overall trend in the major markets for the 4 major staples are a net loss in production and revenue. So far I understand that the effect of climate change is small and price changes are more economic and market driven at this time; however I read a study showing losses in the billions for big 4 crop sales (2011).

RE: Ethanol.
I remember reading something about corn for use in ethanol production was being sold at higher fees which was driving up the overall cost on corn which is typically used for agricultural feed and food products. That was a while ago though and not sure if it is still the case.

I'm not arguing in favor of corn ethanol production. That is a bad-on-multiple-levels program. One of the problems associated with it is that many farms are just planting corn to get in on the action, rather than rotating through a number of crops. That could be just as much to blame for the lower output of the four major crops that Cack mentioned above. You don't need to blame global warming for a drop-off in crop production when you can easily blame farmers for putting all their eggs in one (ethanol) basket rather than rounding out their production.

Of course, if we're really serious about ethanol, we could lower trade barriers regarding sugar and import Brazil's sugar cane based ethanol, which is a legitimate competitor with gasoline down there.

I think we just determined why the UN does not want the US using corn for ethanol production. The obvious fact being that it takes away corn production from those that subsist on it as opposed to reserving it for uses that have a net negative effect in many arenas.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

AmCon's Scott McConnell just published a good article on Ukraine's most recent revolution:

There is perhaps a slim middle path between a Ukraine “won” by the EU and the West and one which falls into civil strife and provokes Russian intervention. Zbigniew Brzezinski pointed to it in the Financial Times: an independent and undivided Ukraine which will “practice policies toward Russia similar to those so effectively practiced by Finland”—i.e. economic ties to both East and West, and no military associaiton with any group perceived, by the Russians, to be anti-Russian. “Finlandization” was a neocon bugaboo during the Cold War, not because it was bad for Finland, which it obviously wasn’t, but because Finlandization for Europe as a whole would have been a strategic victory for Moscow. But clearly a neutralized Ukraine—more difficult to achieve of course because Ukraine is not Finland—would be bad for nobody. Significantly, Angranik Mingranyan had kind words for Brzezinski’s formulation, significant because Zbig, a veteran cold warrior, is generally perceived as cool if not hostile to Russia.

In the end I would conclude that despite my distant admiration for the Maidan revolutionaries and contempt for the kleptocrat Yanukovich, I want a solution Russia can feel comfortable with. There’s much in the present neocon and neoliberal churning over Ukraine that’s based on yearning for another “Western” victory—especially desired by those deprived of one in Syria, Iraq, and of course, Iran. One bad but quite plausible outcome to the present crisis is an unruly revolution, a plea for help from the Russian-speaking Ukranians, followed by a Russian military intervention which puts Russia in the global doghouse for a generation and reignites a new version of the Cold War. This would be a great loss for Russia, but for most of us as well. If I had to think about it, I would consider Putin the best Russian leader to have existed in my lifetime and perhaps for hundreds of years before. An autocrat, certainly, a dictator—arguably. But not a totalitarian dictator, and not, like his predecessor, an alcoholic pushover who lost track of what was going on in his own country. With Putin’s Russia, as the phrase goes, we can certainly do business. When one considers the weighty issues on which the United States and Russia can clash or cooperate: China, climate change, Islamic terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and whatever else emerges in the next decades—I see no advantage whatsoever in trying to squeeze out a win over Moscow from the Ukraine situation.

 

[connor_in]

I knew some foreign exchange students from the Ukraine. Have not been in contact with them for quite a while, but my thoughts and prayers go out to them.

 

[NDFan4Life]

The Uninsured Are Turning Against Obamacare. That's A Problem
Posted: 02/26/2014 4:30 pm EST Updated: 02/26/2014 4:59 pm EST

The Obama administration is running into a somewhat surprising roadblock in its final push to get Americans enrolled in Obamacare ahead of the March 31 deadline: The nation's uninsured are increasingly suspicious of the law.

Fifty-six percent of those who identified as uninsured in a new poll conducted in February by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a research institution, had an unfavorable view of the health care reform law, compared to just 22 percent who said they view it favorably. The uninsured now see Obamacare less favorably than they did when the enrollment period began in October. As recently as September, more uninsured approved of the law than disapproved.

The survey results illustrate just how deep a hole the Obama administration is in when it comes to gaining the support of those the law is most intended to benefit. Indeed, the new findings show the uninsured feel worse about the law than the public at large. Thirty-five percent of Americans approve of Obamacare and 47 percent are against it, according to Kaiser.

Now President Barack Obama and his allies are once again promising to ramp up their outreach efforts to get as many uninsured Americans as possible signed up for coverage.

"We’ve got more work to do. The fact is that we want everybody covered, not just some. That was always the intention and everybody now has the opportunity to get covered," Obama said at an Organizing for Action event Tuesday. "Right now, we’ve only got a few weeks left. March 31, that's the last call."

In addition to Obama personally promoting the law and the Affordable Care Act's health insurance exchanges offering an easy way for people to comparison shop, Vice President Joe Biden appeared on ABC's The View Tuesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is traveling the country to get the word out, and Democratic members of Congress are pushing back after Republican efforts to repeal the law.

At the same time, organizations supportive of health care reform like Enroll America and Organizing for Action are vowing a big, final push to boost enrollment numbers past the 4 million already signed up for private coverage.

An unfavorable opinion of Obamacare among a majority of the uninsured arose in spite of ballyhooed "microtargeting" campaigns to reach that part of the population, including those run out of the White House and those carried out by Enroll America, a nonprofit led by Obama campaign veterans. Using census data and other information, the idea was to target education, outreach and enrollment efforts in geographic areas with large concentrations of low-income, uninsured people who could benefit from the law's subsidized or no-cost health insurance, including cities like Houston and Miami located in states resisting the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

The skepticism among the uninsured revealed by this survey isn't reflective of what Enroll America workers and volunteers hear from the people they contact, Anne Filipic, the group's president, said during a conference call with reporters Wednesday. The emphasis during those interactions is on practical concerns, not politics, she said. "The focus is on the opportunities that are available to consumers."

Enroll America announced its final push for 2014 enrollment Wednesday, calling it "Countdown to Get Covered." The organization, boosted by allied groups including the Service Employees International Union and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, will stage more than 3,000 events across the country, including a bus tour through Ohio and Texas that will include local elected officials and leaders of religious organizations. The bus will visit Austin, Texas, during the South By Southwest music festival. Special emphasis will be placed on reaching out to African-Americans and Latinos and to students at community colleges.

"We know that people are hungry for these new options and eager to enroll when they find out what is available to them," Filipic said. "We will be pushing right up until the March 31 deadline to make sure as many Americans as possible are able to get covered."

The relatively small impact of these kinds of campaigns so far, however, is evident in another finding from the Kaiser Family Foundation poll: just 15 percent of the uninsured and 13 percent of respondents overall said they'd been personally contacted about the Affordable Care Act by telephone, email, text message, or door-to-door visit.

Combined with a relentlessly contentious political debate and overwhelmingly negative news media coverage of the troubled rollout of the health insurance exchanges, it's not surprising that uninsured Americans continue to have poor knowledge of the Affordable Care Act.

More than one-quarter of the uninsured report knowing nothing at all about the health insurance exchanges, with 37 percent more saying they know only a little. That compares with 24 percent who claim some knowledge and 12 percent who told pollsters they know a lot.

And 60 percent of the uninsured didn't know (or refused to respond) that March 31 is the last day to obtain health coverage for 2014 and to avoid financial penalties for violating the law's individual mandate requiring most Americans get covered. Less than a quarter of the uninsured knew about the March 31 deadline. In spite of all the outreach work and the publicity about Obamacare, lack of awareness remains a major obstacle, just as it did in September before enrollment began.

The Uninsured Are Turning Against Obamacare. That's A Problem

 

[ACamp1900]

The radio and internet is just overrun with "Covered California" ads, even the TV to a lesser extent... the ads are so misleading, I would believe it's fair to say they are selling the overall notion of 'free healthcare for all thanks to Obama"... I have had quite a few students come to my office upset lately because when they went to sign up they found it wasn't 'free'...

 

[Bluto]

Warmer than average weather means that there is more farmable land and crops can be planted and harvested further into the year. I've read this as one of the benefits of warming trends. I'll say that human pollution isn't helping anything. But it seems like a combination of hysteria and hubris to assume that human activity could have such a serious impact on something as complex and multi-faceted as the global climate. The earth has gone through massive climate changes in the past, and didn't require our contributions. So we are to believe that "this time it's different?" It wouldn't be happening without us? I'm not outright denying it, but I still remain very skeptical.

The earth has gone through massive climate changes in the past and guess what those changes all coincided with mass extinction. As a species we seem to be oblivious to the fact that we're rolling the dice big time on this one as far as climate is concerned and chances are billions of (mostly poor) people are going to crap out. As far as climate change being "hysteria" most the climate scientists I've meet are pretty much the antithesis of that term. The time for skepticism on this one has long since passed.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I defer to George Carlin on the environment/ climate change.

"The Earth has been here for millions of years. It's not going anywhere. People are."

 

[connor_in]

The earth has gone through massive climate changes in the past and guess what those changes all coincided with mass extinction. As a species we seem to be oblivious to the fact that we're rolling the dice big time on this one as far as climate is concerned and chances are billions of (mostly poor) people are going to crap out. As far as climate change being "hysteria" most the climate scientists I've meet are pretty much the antithesis of that term. The time for skepticism on this one has long since passed.

The Earth has gone thru massive climate changes and subtle climate changes. There has been mass extinctions and there has been evolution. Do you honestly think that mankind is about to become extinct? Mankind has proven to be one of the most adaptable creatures on this planet. We have not only survived in multiple disparate climates and condition, we have sought them out and thrived. The mass extinctions to which you refer generally involved creatures that required certain environments and could not adapt to changes or the changes were extremely massive and super quick in occurring (ie the theory of massive comet/meteor impact on this planet).

BTW...I don't even think the guesses as to what are going to happen to the planet via AGW are even accurate. The models from the last 25-30 years have continuously turned out to be wrong and most not even close. I used the AGW term because that refers to man being the cause of ALL of any change. Do I believe in global warming? Yes. Global cooling? Yes. Climate Change? Yes. AGW? No. The first three have occurred repeatedly throughout the long history of this planet based on the evolution of life on this planet and the interactions it has had with other celestial objects. Mankind IS the cause of various problems with the environment on a cosmically small scale throught history (see the Dust Bowl in American history), but the full theory of AGW (much less the supposed steps to correct it) have not been proven to beyond a reasonable doubt to make it "settled science" (which in itself is a term all scientists should laugh at). Science is seldom, if ever, settled especially in areas where myriad factors interact with one another. Heck, even gravity and light are not completely settled. There are tweaks and experiments that find adjustments to these aspects of the universe. There are nearly infinite things on and about this planet that we have little to no idea about. Why should climate change be "settled" in light of things like that?


Shakespeare Quick Quotes:

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

- Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio

 

[connor_in]

‘The Imperial Presidency’ | Washington Free Beacon

Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, testified that the expansion of executive power is happening so fast that America is at a “constitutional tipping point.”

“My view [is] that the president, has in fact, exceeded his authority in a way that is creating a destabilizing influence in a three branch system,” he said. “I want to emphasize, of course, this problem didn’t begin with President Obama, I was critical of his predecessor President Bush as well, but the rate at which executive power has been concentrated in our system is accelerating. And frankly, I am very alarmed by the implications of that aggregation of power.”

“What also alarms me, however, is that the two other branches appear not just simply passive, but inert in the face of this concentration of authority,” Turley said.

While Turley agrees with many of Obama’s policy positions, he steadfastly opposes the method he goes about enforcing them.

“The fact that I happen to think the president is right on many of these policies does not alter the fact that I believe the means he is doing [it] is wrong, and that this can be a dangerous change in our system,” he said. “And our system is changing in a very fundamental way. And it’s changing without a whimper of regret or opposition.”

...

Turley said Congress must take action to regain their power as the “thumping heart of our system.”

“The fact is, we’re stuck with each other,” Turley said. “Whether we like it or not in a system of shared powers. For better or worse we may deadlock, we maybe despise each other. The framers foresaw such periods, they lived in such a period.”

 

[GoIrish41]

‘The Imperial Presidency’ | Washington Free Beacon

It is hard to imagine how little would get done in this country with more control in the hands of Congress.

 

[T Town Tommy]

It is hard to imagine how little would get done in this country with more control in the hands of Congress.

For a left winger like Turley to be critical of the current climate of EO's, that should dispel the debate on whether the President is starting to venture into unchartered waters.

 

[connor_in]

It is hard to imagine how little would get done in this country with more control in the hands of Congress.

That being said...aren't the three branches of government supposed to be co-equal?

 

[connor_in]

For a left winger like Turley to be critical of the current climate of EO's, that should dispel the debate on whether the President is starting to venture into unchartered waters.

Exacty...as a former staple of Countdown with Keith Olbermann staple, I wanted to emphasize that with the items I bolded and underlined in the quotes taken form the article.(That he supports Obama's plans but not how he goes about it...that he had the similar problems with W...)

 

[wizards8507]

It is hard to imagine how little would get done in this country with more control in the hands of Congress.

"Getting very little done" is a feature of our government, not a flaw. It was designed that way on purpose. Read Federalist No. 10 on the dangers of factions. If we had a system in which laws could be made and revised at the whims of our leaders by simple majorities, we lose the ability to protect minority* groups from having their liberties trampled. Political gridlock is intentional because the framers only wanted Congress passing laws that are such damn good ideas that virtually everyone agrees on them.

*Not minority ethnic groups, but minority opinions, minority political parties, etc.

 

[connor_in]

Saw this one and thought I would share it...

RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE TO $14 AN HOUR USING THIS ONE WEIRD TRICK!

February 26, 2014

Democrats believe they've hit on the perfect issue to distract from the horror of Obamacare in the 2014 elections: the minimum wage.

Apparently, increasing the minimum wage was not important for American workers during the first five years of Obama's presidency -- least of all his first two years, when Democrats controlled Congress and could have passed anything. (And did!)

No. The minimum wage did not become a pressing concern until an election year in which the public's hatred of Obamacare is expected to be the central issue.

As The New York Times explained, Democrats see the minimum wage as an issue that "will place Republican candidates in a difficult position," and also as a tool "to enlarge the electorate in a nonpresidential election, when turnout among minorities and youths typically drops off."

(Unlike Republicans, Democrats consider it important to win elections.)

To most people, it seems as if the Democrats are giving workers something for nothing. But there are always tradeoffs. No serious economist denies that increasing the minimum wage will cost jobs. If it's not worth paying someone $10 an hour to do something, the job will be eliminated -- or it simply won't be created.

The minimum wage is the perfect Democratic issue. It will screw the very people it claims to help, while making Democrats look like saviors of the working class, either by getting them a higher wage or providing them with generous government benefits when they lose their jobs because of the mandatory wage hike.

Of course, the reason American workers’ wages are so low in the first place is because of the Democrats' policies on immigration. Republicans might want to point that out.

Since the late 1960s, the Democrats have been dumping about a million low-skilled immigrants on the country every year, driving down wages, especially at the lower end of the spectrum.

According to Harvard economist George Borjas, our immigration policies have reduced American wages by $402 billion a year -- while increasing profits for employers by $437 billion a year. (That's minus what they have to pay to the government in taxes to support their out-of-work former employees. Of course, we're all forced to share that tax burden.)



Or, as the White House puts it on its website promoting an increase in the minimum wage, "Today, the real value of the minimum wage has fallen by nearly one-third since its peak in 1968."

Why were wages so high until 1968? Because that's when Teddy Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Act kicked in, bringing in about a million immigrants a year, almost 90 percent of them unskilled workers from the Third World.

Our immigration policies massively redistribute wealth from the poorest Americans to the richest. It's a basic law of economics that when the supply goes up, the price goes down. More workers means the price of their labor plummets.

Unfortunately, politicians spend a lot more time talking to rich employers than to working-class Americans. And the rich apparently have an insatiable appetite for cheap labor.

Having artificially created a glut of low-wage workers, now Democrats want to artificially raise their wages.

It's win-win-win-win-win for Democrats.

-- Employees who get a higher minimum wage are grateful to the Democrats.

-- Employees who lose their jobs because of the minimum wage hike are grateful to the Democrats for generous government handouts.

-- Poor immigrants who need government benefits are grateful to the Democrats.

-- American businesses enjoying the deluge of cheap labor are grateful to the Democrats.

-- Democratic politicians guaranteed re-election by virtue of ethnic bloc voting are grateful to the Democrats.

Do Republicans have any principles at all? Why isn't the GOP demanding an end to this dump of unskilled workers/Democratic voters on the country?

Democrats show how much they love the poor by importing a million more of them to America each year. But then they prevent the last batch of poor immigrants from getting decent, well-paying jobs by bringing in another million poor people the next year.

You want a higher minimum wage? Turn off the spigot of low-wage workers pouring in to the U.S. and it will rise on its own through the iron law of supply and demand.

In response to the Democrats' minimum wage proposal, Republicans should introduce a bill ending both legal and illegal immigration until the minimum wage rises naturally to $14 an hour.

Australia has a $15 minimum wage for adults -- more than twice the U.S. minimum wage. Meanwhile, their official unemployment rate is lower than ours: 6 percent compared to 6.6 percent in the U.S. -- and that's with a lousy $7.25 minimum wage.

Sound good? Try immigrating there. Australia has some of the most restrictive immigration policies in the world. Their approach to immigration is to admit only people who will be good for Australia. (Weird!) Applicants are evaluated on a point system that gives preference to youth, English proficiency, education and skill level.

Similarly, New Zealand will soon have an official minimum wage of $14.25 for adults. Even our Democrats aren't proposing that! New Zealand's minimum wage hit $10.10 -- the Democrats' current proposal for us -- back in 2006. Their unemployment rate is also 6 percent -- up from several years of 4 percent unemployment a few years ago.

Like Australia, New Zealand's immigration laws are based on helping New Zealand, not on helping other countries get rid of their poor people, which is our policy.

Instead of training the citizenry to look at the government as our paternal benefactor, distributing minimum wage laws and unemployment benefits in important election years, why don't Republicans put an end to the artificial glut of low-wage, low-skilled workers being imposed on the country by our immigration laws?

Republicans could guarantee a $14 minimum wage simply by closing the pipeline of more than 1 million poor immigrants coming in every year.

Businessmen will gripe, but maybe the GOP could explain to their Chamber of Commerce friends that they will help them by slashing oppressive regulations, reining in government bureaucracies, passing tort reform, etc. They'll also be able to cut taxes because the welfare state will shrink, a result of Americans going back to work.

But if the plutocrats insist on admitting another 30 million Democratic voters in order to get ever-cheaper labor, then, soon, Republicans won't be in a position to help them at all.

 

[connor_in]

"Getting very little done" is a feature of our government, not a flaw. It was designed that way on purpose. Read Federalist No. 10 on the dangers of factions. If we had a system in which laws could be made and revised at the whims of our leaders by simple majorities, we lose the ability to protect minority* groups from having their liberties trampled. Political gridlock is intentional because the framers only wanted Congress passing laws that are such damn good ideas that virtually everyone agrees on them.

*Not minority ethnic groups, but minority opinions, minority political parties, etc.

Tried to rep you but system said I have to spread it around

 

[GoIrish41]

That being said...aren't the three branches of government supposed to be co-equal?

I don't really see the current president acting as a dictator. I dispise the drone policy and how frequently he uses it, but outside of that I'm not sure I can put my finger on an istance where he has weilded the type of dictatorial power that it seems is being suggested here. I think the branches are co-equal, each weilding powers that the other two don't have.

 

[wizards8507]

I don't really see the current president acting as a dictator. I dispise the drone policy and how frequently he uses it, but outside of that I'm not sure I can put my finger on an istance where he has weilded the type of dictatorial power that it seems is being suggested here. I think the branches are co-equal, each weilding powers that the other two don't have.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says "you must buy health insurance," i.e. individual mandate.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says "employer must provide health insurance," i.e. employer mandate.

President Obama says... Naaah.... We're just gonna go ahead and delay that.

For all the Democrats saying Republicans need to shut up about the ACA because it's the "law of the land," the "law of the land" argument doesn't seem to apply to the President and his Attorney General.

 

[connor_in]

I don't really see the current president acting as a dictator. I dispise the drone policy and how frequently he uses it, but outside of that I'm not sure I can put my finger on an istance where he has weilded the type of dictatorial power that it seems is being suggested here. I think the branches are co-equal, each weilding powers that the other two don't have.

You leap, my friend...take steps instead. It does not call him a dictator (though many on the left used that exact word for W, even musing on the question as to whether he would leave office willingly at the end of his duly elected term)

The article and the liberal Turley refer to powers getting out of balance and rips W for same items.

 

[potownhero]

I don't really see the current president acting as a dictator. I dispise the drone policy and how frequently he uses it, but outside of that I'm not sure I can put my finger on an istance where he has weilded the type of dictatorial power that it seems is being suggested here. I think the branches are co-equal, each weilding powers that the other two don't have.

When did the executive branch get to rewrite law?

When Cruz suggested we delay the implementation of the HC Law everyone said, "No, it is the law of the land. It's codified in the law to commence on a specific date"

A few weeks later, the President delayed the implementation of the law for a large group of businesses.

You don't see an issue with the president changing the law? Changing the implementation date is changing the law.

Sounds like something only a legislature could do or a dictator would do.

 

[T Town Tommy]

I don't really see the current president acting as a dictator. I dispise the drone policy and how frequently he uses it, but outside of that I'm not sure I can put my finger on an istance where he has weilded the type of dictatorial power that it seems is being suggested here. I think the branches are co-equal, each weilding powers that the other two don't have.

The pen and a phone comment was a typical political feeler. Put it out there to see if there was any backlash before actually moving forward using it. Simple politics. And since Obama has felt some, but not much, heat for the feeler he may very well feel empowered to start pushing his agenda through using EOs as the tool. I think Turley recognizes this and is stating pretty clearly that if the President decides to act, he will be crossing lines within the three branches of government.

 

[T Town Tommy]

When did the executive branch get to rewrite law?

When Cruz suggested we delay the implementation of the HC Law everyone said, "No, it is the law of the land. It's codified in the law to commence on a specific date"

A few weeks later, the President delayed the implementation of the law for a large group of businesses.

You don't see an issue with the president changing the law? Changing the implementation date is changing the law.

Sounds like something only a legislature could do or a dictator would do.

The powers vested in the President to enact the laws are pretty vague and subject to interpretation. He does have some authority in this area... how much authority is the real question.

 

[Cackalacky]

What a schitzophrenic thread..... LOL

 

[wizards8507]

What a schitzophrenic thread..... LOL

 

[Black Irish]

Study: Huge wind turbine farm could cut hurricane wind and storm surge damage - Houston Chronicle

Hmmm. Maybe those Prius driving tree huggers are onto something with these wind farms. Seriously though, it's interesting stuff. Now you just need someone to do a cost/benefit analysis. How much will these off-shore wind farms cost versus how much energy can they supply and how much storm damage can they prevent?

 

[wizards8507]

Study: Huge wind turbine farm could cut hurricane wind and storm surge damage - Houston Chronicle

Hmmm. Maybe those Prius driving tree huggers are onto something with these wind farms. Seriously though, it's interesting stuff. Now you just need someone to do a cost/benefit analysis. How much will these off-shore wind farms cost versus how much energy can they supply and how much storm damage can they prevent?

Maybe not...

Wind farms can kill eagles without penalty - NBC News