Obama Trolls Senate Republicans: Progressives Delighted

[Ashmoria]

*smacks self in forehead*

its not ambassadors its JUDGES that he cant recess appoint

and there are tons of judges who need appointing. asshole republicans are holding up justice in the whole country.

[The Black Forrest]

Several Problems: The Senate is in session regardless if it is continuing any business, as long as someone is there to 'bang the gavel' for a head count, the senate is in session, so this whole 'recess appointment' is a 'work around' through some made up loophole that the President and his cohorts are exploiting.

It's a game of technicalities. The Constitution does not define when or time for a recess.

Recess appointments are not a bad thing.

The question to ask is would he have done this if the Repubs actually wanted to you know negotiate on things rather then stop everything this President does?

The next one is how the whole Bureau is being funded, which isn't through Congress but through the Federal Reserve, wait a minute, that means that they have literally no overhead and can spout out regulations and costly measures to 'protect' the people.

Ahh no. This is not free money at the whim.

Also, the repub version is hardly better. Yearly arguments. How would this department do it's job when the Repubs view anything that doesn't give business a green light is a bad thing.

I could have sworn that only Congress had the power to fund things, not the President.

There is discretionary.

Obama didn't grow a spine, he is only doing this because he knows that it won't go through,

That's called a spine. Before he would have caved to the Repubs.

nor should it because it isn't even a recess appointment.

*shrugs* The definition is left to debate.

The repubs are just pissed he snuck a couple by. BooooooHooooo. i am sure they fought the shrub tooth and nail for all what 161 appoints he made? Didn't they? Oh yea nope.

Another unconstitutional move by the all powerful executive branch,

This is political. It's hardly an attack on the Constitution.

I also remember that Obama refuses to take no for an answer and would work around congress for the 'good of the people' if that isn't rhetoric similarly used by others who used the 'people' as a way to become a tyrant, I don't know what is.

So how do you work with the Repubs when they are nothing more then FUCK YOU!!!!!!!! on everything?

He may have sincerely tried but the repubs really haven't made an effort. After awhile it's time to say fuck you back and start playing the game.

Trust me, as long as Obama is in office, we'll never see the end of this.

Recess appointments started with Washington. Why should they stop?

[The Black Forrest]

Problem being he's skating on a pretty dark-gray line by not getting a senate confirmation of his appointment and by excusing it as a "recess appointment" when congress is still (technically) in session.

Well, for one, as previously stated, every president does it, and for another, it's not like he didn't desperately ask for confirmation at every opportunity before this point. The GOP was just dead set against not appointing anyone because they didn't like the idea of any kind of federal oversight of the financial industry.

Of course you commie. It will self regulate itself. The market will have an effect as well.

Remember BofA with the fees? Got sued and returned over 400 million. They ended up with 1.6 billion. Self-regulation is very profitable.

[Free Soviets]

You know the american "left" is in a sorry state when they rally around the president in joy because he's accomplished something as amazing as making an appointment.

gotta rally around something. besides, we really are in the midst of a country-destroying crisis of minority obstruction of the basic functioning of governance. you have to take your tiny victories where you can. being a downer all the time just makes people check out.

[New Chalcedon]

Then tell the Senate Republicans to let it come to a frigging vote in the first place. You know, instead of blanket-filibustering any nominee because they object to the agency, which is wrong. Not so much objecting to the agency: that's their right, even if I disagree with their objections to it. But given that the agency is there (they lost that fight last year), and is highly-likely to continue to be there (being that it is highly-unlikely that they'll get enough Senators or Representatives to sign on to all-out repeal), these Senators have a Constitutional duty to do their part in seeing that it has effective leadership whatever their opinion of the CFPB. Which they have flat-out refused to do.

So, basically, what you're saying is that you're upset that Obama end-ran the Senate, even though the Senate was point-blank refusing to do it's duty of holding a vote on the nominee.

Ok fair enough, but how about find a consensus director whom everyone likes, rather than this cordray guy. Suggest a different nominee who won't exercise the power of the cfpb so vigorously and everybody is happy. After all regean didn't abolish the EPA but he did appoint people who basically wouldn't do annoying that hurt business interests and only enforced actions against serious and flagrant violation of EPA regulations, just do the same thing here.

Pay attention, please.

The Senate Republicans made it clear: their beef IS NOT WITH CORDRAY. Not ONE of them got up and stated that they had a problem - vague or specific - about Cordray. He was the consensus nominee, the bright-n-shiny guy whom no-one could object to.

So the Republicans didn't bother. They just said "Eff off, we're not allowing anyone to even come to a vote." It was a clear-cut case of political hostage-taking (the GOP's price for a Director was the emasculation of the agency), and for once, Obama said "Fuck you!" to them, and went ahead & saved the hostage. And you know what? I'm glad he did, because the only thing that Obama has ever gotten from his innumerable attempts to play nice with the GOP is a black eye.

[Sucrati]

Several Problems: The Senate is in session regardless if it is continuing any business, as long as someone is there to 'bang the gavel' for a head count, the senate is in session, so this whole 'recess appointment' is a 'work around' through some made up loophole that the President and his cohorts are exploiting.

It's a game of technicalities. The Constitution does not define when or time for a recess.

Recess appointments are not a bad thing.

The question to ask is would he have done this if the Repubs actually wanted to you know negotiate on things rather then stop everything this President does?

The next one is how the whole Bureau is being funded, which isn't through Congress but through the Federal Reserve, wait a minute, that means that they have literally no overhead and can spout out regulations and costly measures to 'protect' the people.

Ahh no. This is not free money at the whim.

Also, the repub version is hardly better. Yearly arguments. How would this department do it's job when the Repubs view anything that doesn't give business a green light is a bad thing.

I could have sworn that only Congress had the power to fund things, not the President.

There is discretionary.

Obama didn't grow a spine, he is only doing this because he knows that it won't go through,

That's called a spine. Before he would have caved to the Repubs.

nor should it because it isn't even a recess appointment.

*shrugs* The definition is left to debate.

The repubs are just pissed he snuck a couple by. BooooooHooooo. i am sure they fought the shrub tooth and nail for all what 161 appoints he made? Didn't they? Oh yea nope.

Another unconstitutional move by the all powerful executive branch,

This is political. It's hardly an attack on the Constitution.

I also remember that Obama refuses to take no for an answer and would work around congress for the 'good of the people' if that isn't rhetoric similarly used by others who used the 'people' as a way to become a tyrant, I don't know what is.

So how do you work with the Repubs when they are nothing more then FUCK YOU!!!!!!!! on everything?

He may have sincerely tried but the repubs really haven't made an effort. After awhile it's time to say fuck you back and start playing the game.

Trust me, as long as Obama is in office, we'll never see the end of this.

Recess appointments started with Washington. Why should they stop?

1. You missed the whole 'The senate was in session and the President tried to go around them' point I was making. Actually, Congressional Sessions begin on the 3rd Day of January as of the 20th Amendment, the Senate was in session, no business may be being dealt with, but the Senate was in Session. Of course Recess Appointments are not bad, but they still have to be approved by Congress. Remember when Bush tried to push through his recess appointments? What was the response? Oh wait a minute!

Dems say they'll block all U.S. judge appointments. They're feuding with Bush, angry at him for bypassing normal process

Essentially, the Republicans are just doing what the Democrats did back during Bush's term... The Democrats told Bush: Up Yours, we won't allow you to do this, you better stop creating recess appointments.

Let me answer your question with a question: What if negotiating with a man, who continues to tell the American people that said Republicans are continuing blocking his progress, when negotiations for many things have been stopped by Obama, who basically only wants things to go his way?

You cannot negotiate with a man who is a egotistical power hungry jerk who happens to be a hypocrite on wall street's dime. Plus the Republicans were elected to create gridlock aka, not allow Obama to continue with the 'change' that we as a nation don't want or need. Obama got what he wanted through with a super majority before the elections changed that. Heck, he can just sign executive orders... well that would be unconstitutional as well.

2. The issue is that it is funded by the FEDERAL RESERVE, and not taxpayer funds (which would be appropriated by CONGRESS... now where do they get the funds? The Federal Reserve Building in St. Louis)

SEC. 214. PROHIBITION ON TAXPAYER FUNDING.

(a) Liquidation Required- All financial companies put into receivership under this title shall be liquidated. No taxpayer funds shall be used to prevent the liquidation of any financial company under this title.

(b) Recovery of Funds- All funds expended in the liquidation of a financial company under this title shall be recovered from the disposition of assets of such financial company, or shall be the responsibility of the financial sector, through assessments.

(c) No Losses to Taxpayers- Taxpayers shall bear no losses from the exercise of any authority under this title.

Where the whole issue was brought up

3. No, Discretionary Spending is NOT a power of the President.

Article 1 Section 7: All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

The President has NO power in spending legislation, literally, none. Find something in the Constitution, which amendment or article to prove me wrong.

4. You have missed yet another point: Obama is playing a partisan political game with the Republicans so he can use this in the upcoming election, his goal is to get re-elected, you honestly believe he's actually trying to do this as a 'measure of goodwill' with the people? No, it's all a game to him. Hiding behind your failures by planting others as the source of your failures is cowardice.

5. No, it's not, there is a clear definition of recess appointment and a standard appointment.

Obama has so far tried to push 28 people as recess appointments the major issue here is the lack of Congressional Scrutiny of the whole Bureau itself (because they don't get funding through congressional bills) that is the biggest reason they aren't voting on him. BUT, the other appointments have been to anti-business departments in the government, one is the NLRB, which famously struck down Boeing from building a specific type of aircraft in a right work state (South Carolina), when they were NOT closing the one in Washington (State), you think big business is in bed with the government? The unions have their own bloody department in it.

6. If President Obama uses executive power to 'approve' his own nomination, he has overstepped his constitutional authority. Most of his executive fiats (orders) have been 'substituting' legislation. Which he has NO power to legislate. And he tried to push this through under a Pro Forma Session of Congress.

7. The Republicans have tried to play the bipartisan game with the Democrats, and they get screwed everytime. They decide to not fall for it, and Obama is made to be the victim because the Republicans are doing their jobs? Oh the Irony!

8. Because we need to go back to Constitutional Law and reign in government power. But that may never happen.

[Sucrati]

Ok fair enough, but how about find a consensus director whom everyone likes, rather than this cordray guy. Suggest a different nominee who won't exercise the power of the cfpb so vigorously and everybody is happy. After all regean didn't abolish the EPA but he did appoint people who basically wouldn't do annoying that hurt business interests and only enforced actions against serious and flagrant violation of EPA regulations, just do the same thing here.

Pay attention, please.

The Senate Republicans made it clear: their beef IS NOT WITH CORDRAY. Not ONE of them got up and stated that they had a problem - vague or specific - about Cordray. He was the consensus nominee, the bright-n-shiny guy whom no-one could object to.

So the Republicans didn't bother. They just said "Eff off, we're not allowing anyone to even come to a vote." It was a clear-cut case of political hostage-taking (the GOP's price for a Director was the emasculation of the agency), and for once, Obama said "Fuck you!" to them, and went ahead & saved the hostage. And you know what? I'm glad he did, because the only thing that Obama has ever gotten from his innumerable attempts to play nice with the GOP is a black eye.

Actually it was due to the fact that Congress itself wasn't funding the Bureau, but it was funded through the Federal Reserve, which there is literally no scrutiny by Congress and the Bureau has funding regardless what Congress does.

[New Chalcedon]

1. You missed the whole 'The senate was in session and the President tried to go around them' point I was making. Actually, Congressional Sessions begin on the 3rd Day of January as of the 20th Amendment, the Senate was in session, no business may be being dealt with, but the Senate was in Session. Of course Recess Appointments are not bad, but they still have to be approved by Congress. Remember when Bush tried to push through his recess appointments? What was the response? Oh wait a minute!

Dems say they'll block all U.S. judge appointments. They're feuding with Bush, angry at him for bypassing normal process

Essentially, the Republicans are just doing what the Democrats did back during Bush's term... The Democrats told Bush: Up Yours, we won't allow you to do this, you better stop creating recess appointments.

Bullshit. The Democrats didn't hold the entire department hostage as the price of getting a nominee in. When they objected to a nominee, they had grounds related to that nominee - sometimes rightly, other times wrongly - and didn't simply block dozens and dozens of nominees because they could. Unlike, you know, the Republicans of today, who place blanket holds on all Obama nominees over such relevant issues as the size of the pork barrels being sent to their home States, or simply because the appearance of a failed government leads voters to punish incumbents (please note, in my first link, that the number of filibusters per Congress doubled the moment the Republicans became the minority)....and we know what the Republican Senators' first and only priority is.

Let me answer your question with a question:

Well, I can't stop you.

What if negotiating with a man, who continues to tell the American people that said Republicans are continuing blocking his progress, when negotiations for many things have been stopped by Obama, who basically only wants things to go his way?

Bullshit. Bullshit marinated in horse piss. Show one example of Obama demanding that it's his way or the highway.

You cannot negotiate with a man who is a egotistical power hungry jerk who happens to be a hypocrite on wall street's dime.

How fortunate, then, that Obama is no such person, instead being a spineless cretin who has made a habit over the past 3 years of letting the GOP use him as a doormat, to the detriment of the United States of America.

Plus the Republicans were elected to create gridlock aka, not allow Obama to continue with the 'change' that we as a nation don't want or need.

Really? Oh, really? Why, then, has Congressional approval rating dropped to all-time lows?

Obama got what he wanted through with a super majority before the elections changed that.

As I have explained before, both on this site and elsewhere, the Democrats never had a supermajority. The best - the very best - that they could claim at any given time was 58 Senators, plus 2 Independents who caucused with the Dems. The Democrats - unlike the Republicans - do not believe in mindless conformity to central authority, and hence cannot count on each and every Democrat to side with the party caucus on any given issue. In any case, pleasing that blowhard asshat Joe Lieberman (I-Blue Shield) proved to be all but impossible, leaving the Democrats frequently one vote short of being able to break the unified GOP filibusters. As was shown on the health-care debate, when Lieberman promised to filibuster the public option on healthcare, after running on it in 2006.

Heck, he can just sign executive orders... well that would be unconstitutional as well.

Fond of the bullshit, I see. Executive orders have been around as long as the Presidency. George Washington signed one, ordering all citizens to act in given ways toward specific foreign nations, in 1793, although there are references to earlier executive orders issued as early as 1789. 1789, I remind you, was the first year that the first President held the office. The use of executive orders to clarify or interpret laws passed by Congress far precedes the institution of the filibuster in the Senate, which only began when the first filibuster was implemented in 1837.

2. The issue is that it is funded by the FEDERAL RESERVE, and not taxpayer funds (which would be appropriated by CONGRESS... now where do they get the funds? The Federal Reserve Building in St. Louis)

As opposed to making its funding levels an annual battleground, thus giving Senate Republicant's even more opportunities for low-risk, high-reward hostage taking. No thanks. The further away the GOP is removed from any argument, the more rooted in reality that argument will become.

SEC. 214. PROHIBITION ON TAXPAYER FUNDING.

(a) Liquidation Required- All financial companies put into receivership under this title shall be liquidated. No taxpayer funds shall be used to prevent the liquidation of any financial company under this title.

(b) Recovery of Funds- All funds expended in the liquidation of a financial company under this title shall be recovered from the disposition of assets of such financial company, or shall be the responsibility of the financial sector, through assessments.

(c) No Losses to Taxpayers- Taxpayers shall bear no losses from the exercise of any authority under this title.

Where the whole issue was brought up

Blah blah blahdy-blah. Got a point you're trying to make here? This is the rule purporting to deal with the political brushfire caused by TARP, prohibiting the spending of taxpayer money on any more bailouts. Does this have any fucking relevance at all to the discussion? No, it does not - unless you're saying that Wall Street being given a blank cheque drawn on taxpayer dollars is a good thing for the USA.

3. No, Discretionary Spending is NOT a power of the President.

Article 1 Section 7: All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

The President has NO power in spending legislation, literally, none. Find something in the Constitution, which amendment or article to prove me wrong.

Someone needs to study their Constitutional law, I see. Each annual budget has a certain amount set aside - by each House of Congress, which votes to allocate the funds per the President's (possibly amended, if Congress declines the original request) budget proposal - for "discretionary spending". In this context, "discretionary spending" means "money allocated to be spent on sundry programs not obliged by present law". Congress - the House and the Senate both, as required by the Constitution - has allocated the money to be used at the President's discretion, hence the term "discretionary spending".

4. You have missed yet another point: Obama is playing a partisan political game with the Republicans so he can use this in the upcoming election, his goal is to get re-elected, you honestly believe he's actually trying to do this as a 'measure of goodwill' with the people? No, it's all a game to him. Hiding behind your failures by planting others as the source of your failures is cowardice.

And spending three years imitating "Dr. NO" in order to cynically benefit from the resulting shattered government structure and anemic economy is worse than cowardice. It, in fact, is treason - the Republican Party has placed their desire to destroy Obama ahead of their Constitutional duty to serve their nation as a loyal opposition.

Also, no: Obama put each of the nominees in front of the Senate, where the GOP simply refused to let a vote be held on them. They - the Senate Republicans - have also admitted that these blocks (including several judicial filibusters) have absolutely nothing to do with the character, qualifications or attitudes of the nominees themselves: they simply refuse to fill the position with anyone, no matter who Obama nominates. He could nominate Art Laffer to the CFPB, and they'd filibuster. He could nominate Miltion Friedman, and they'd filibuster. To Obama, I say "Well done. You finally found your spine."

Also, what - exactly what, please - is so objectionable about Cordray that he merits a filibuster? All they have to do is actually let his nomination come to a fucking vote, and then they can have their say on the floor, as laid out by parlimentary procedure and Constitutional principle. Instead, they use centuries-old arcane procedures (not one of which is endorsed by the Constitution, btw) to obstruct, bar and prevent a vote being held, so that they - the minority - get to dictate terms to the Democrats - the majority. Which is, in case you weren't aware, a perversion of democracy.

5. No, it's not, there is a clear definition of recess appointment and a standard appointment.

Obama has so far tried to push 28 people as recess appointments the major issue here is the lack of Congressional Scrutiny of the whole Bureau itself (because they don't get funding through congressional bills) that is the biggest reason they aren't voting on him.

Wrong. The issue is that the Senate GOP - which is busy cozying up to Wall Street - would rather the CFPB didn't exist at all, and is snatching at any straw in sight to find an excuse to prevent it doing its work. Also, "recess" is not defined anywhere in the Constitution.

BUT, the other appointments have been to anti-business departments in the government, one is the NLRB, which famously struck down Boeing from building a specific type of aircraft in a right work state (South Carolina), when they were NOT closing the one in Washington (State), you think big business is in bed with the government? The unions have their own bloody department in it.

Bullshit once again. You're quite the amateur bullshit artist, are you not? Please note that Senator Graham - who, btw, consider such niceties as habeus corpus and access to lawyers optional on the part of people detained by the government - placed an indefinite hold on ANY nominee to the NLRB unless and until Obama agreed to gut its powers.

6. If President Obama uses executive power to 'approve' his own nomination, he has overstepped his constitutional authority.

How fortunate that this is not how recess appointments work, then. It's a temporary appointment, which must be approved by the full Senate within one year. As is, and has been since Washington's time, standard procedure on recess appointments.

Most of his executive fiats (orders) have been 'substituting' legislation. Which he has NO power to legislate. And he tried to push this through under a Pro Forma Session of Congress.

Oh, you mean that Congress isn't allowed to bang the gavel once every three days in order to hobble the ability of the President to do anything? The horror!! Clutch your pearls, Martha!! How dare the President actually try to staff the Executive Branch of government against the wishes of a minority of the Senate? How dare he?!?!?!

7. The Republicans have tried to play the bipartisan game with the Democrats, and they get screwed everytime. They decide to not fall for it, and Obama is made to be the victim because the Republicans are doing their jobs? Oh the Irony!

Fuck that steaming pile of bullshit. The Republicans are not, and have not since at least 2009, acted in any fashion in a bipartisan manner with Democrats, or even negotiated in good faith on any issue - not even one issue - since Obama assumed the Presidency. The Republicans are not doing their jobs. The Republicans are not letting the Senate do it's job. They are standing on the floor, whining like spoilt children throwing a tantrum, because someone, somewhere, is trying to make the government work. They filibuster, they lie about the nominees, they lie about the departments, they make up arcane bullshit - like pretending that Congress is doing its fucking job when all that's happening is a gavel being banged every third day - and when all of that fails, they go crying to the media, who uncritically parrot their bullshit lines.

8. Because we need to go back to Constitutional Law and reign in government power. But that may never happen.

Ah, the sweet, sweet smell of originalist bullshit. Please learn your chronology: the Constitution was made in the 18th century. This, dear person, is the 21st century, and the Founding Fathers - being wise, albeit imperfect, people - realised that the needs for and of government would change over time. Hence such clauses in the Constitution as the general welfare clause. Hence the lack of definition of "Recess" as applied to the legislature. Hence the flexibility in which each House gets to largely make its own rules, rather than imposing a rigid procedural framework. Hence the many and varied other points of flexibility in the Constitution.

Overall, your post was utter bullshit, unmixed with even a hint of truth or reality. I know that you won't even read half of what I wrote - and that you will, no doubt, take the half you do read out of context in order to twist it - but I didn't write it for your edification. I wrote it to rebut your lies, distortions and half-truths for the benefit of anyone else who may happen to read your post.

[Red zephie]

you mean he actually did something

wow

[Vurran]

I'm pleased that Obama is beginning to toughen up. Hopefully he continues this!

[Mosasauria]

It looks like Obama can finally be classified within Chordata.

[Ora Amaris]

Looks like Mr. Obama is well on his way to Re-election.

[NicoletB]

President Obama has been working really hard to try and get reelected this year. A part of that campaign has brought on him to make many things look “Evil” including payday cash advances. If he were to get rid of payday lending, low- and middle-income individuals would be the individuals hurt by it. Payday loans are usually less expensive than credit cards and bouncing a check. It is a great source for crisis cash when someone needs a little bit of help. Payday Loans isn't only a very expensive way to borrow as it help you with your financial needs. It is important for the citizens to pay their bills and it is not really an "evil" thing.

[Puissancevise]

You know, I used to be anti-Obama.

Then the anti-Obama folks opened their mouths and I listened to what they had to say.

Now I'm pro-Obama.

Ditto.