Regulation is necessary, otherwise, those deterrmined to be rich will foist off shoddy and even dangerous products on the rest of us…look at some of the shoddy building practices inn other countries…take a look at “Madeoff with everybody’s money”, just for starters.
Soros in 2008 was calling for Obama to “govern” by White House edicts…and Obama has been doing it but in an abusive manner that bypasses Congress and the Law and the Will of The People.
no agency should be allowed to get away with using “regulations” which are supposed to obey the
LAW and the will of congress which is supposed to express the will of the citizens, to carry out activities and rules and mandates the congress has by vote rejected!
the Senate refused Kyoto but fed agencies tried to implement treaty components rejected by the Senate…the “backdoor” Soros pushed.
When Congress and the express will of Americans say “no”— that should preclude any agency from sneaking “forbidden” powers onto the private sector, such as mandates and fines and penalties when businesses do legal and regular practises, but which offend the Econuts and Leftwing Liberals….it should also preclude Executive Orders from the Oval office!
^ Except Soros didn’t invent executive orders or signing statements. You’re conveniently forgetting that Bush used them both extensively. Your outrage would be more believable if it were even-handed.
the constitution doesn’t stop at article 1, there is also article 2 and this is perfectly within the presidential powers.
now the signing statements are entirely different when they say that the president won’t follow certain aspects of a law. That would be a reasonable argument.
It was about the second year of Reagan when my job included reviewing new or proposed “regulations”. In a one week period, I found 32 new regulations from the ADMINISTRATION, that ordered agencies to do THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what the laws passed by Congress called for. It only got worse, and again even FAR WORSE under “W” and Cheney. Reading through mining and oil drilling regulations (2007 was a prime year) changing MMS and resource agency rules to “favor” extraction industries will give anyone in the public nightmares, while industry built “pleasant dreams”.
Actually, Obama is reversing some of those “pro-industry” regulations that violated the law in the FIRST PLACE, and THAT has “industry” and K Street (our real Congress) very upset.
Breaking the Constitution isn’t acceptable for any party to do believecommonsense and Jade. That’s a clever cop out though. Yes, if these whiners and complainers are hypocritical in their charge against Dems’ actions while applauding Reps doing the same thing, then so be it.
However, being hypocritical is a hard charge to lay out on ignorance.
With that being said, would then you (believecommonsense and Jade) agree with the idea of Boener’s (i think it was his) that a bill be passed that requires every new bill to prove Constitutional muster for the bill in general and each of its parts or be invalidated? Or would you rather there still be entities outside of Congress as well as Congress itself that are allowed to operate outside of Constitutional bounds (even if you think the action taken would benefit you or adhere to your ideological desires)?
If you are not willing to accept those terms then you cannot lay the ‘Constitutional violations’ charge against Reps. Turning your own charge against you… if it’s okay for the Dems to do, then it’s okay for the Reps to do, as well.
If you don’t agree to that… then we have the good vs bad play. Dems become Cobra and Reps GI JOE. Why? Because then you are saying that Reps have to handle themselves to a higher standard than Dems (who in turn are allow to break any rule or principle they like so long as the outcome is desirable… method be bleeped). You would be admitting that Reps are the more principled, moral and ethical party because they actually have to adhere to a standard… one the Dems can ignore when ever it suits them, and be justified in doing so. Where as the Reps are never justified if they do the same thing.
It’s a double standard that makes you the ‘bad guy.’ I don’t think you want to go that route.
@DJGuardian - The “insurance mandate” is a Republican idea that has propagated itself for YEARS. If it is truly unconstitutional, how come it is that it’s been in every Republican counter to healthcare bills up till now? Why is it I can get fined by the State of Virginia if I do not purchase private car insurance to drive on roads paid for with my tax dollars? I’m fine with removing the mandate, and also remove the GOVERNMENT mandate that I have to buy PRIVATE car insurance every year or pay a $500 fine. I’m a good driver. Why should I have to pay a hundred+ dollars every month? I could put that combined money into paying for any actual damages. Oh wait, does this sound familiar? “But you could take the fine and not pay for car insurance.” gasp This sounds very familiar. Yeah, direct parallels to Healthcare.
Every member of the RNC up for chairman said they support the actions of this news item: http://www.dailytribune.com/articles/2010/12/29/news/doc4d1be1ae89ef6786077792.txt
It’s a constitutional violation. Your opinion? The Republicans fought DADT repeal (another Constitutional violation) tooth and nail. McCain called the passage of DADT repeal / Constitutional rights for soldiers a sad day. Really, the hypocrisy here is so blatant. I stand by statement above. Republicans love Constitutional violations, especially ones that get them that evangelical vote. They’re only mad that Obama took one of their ideas and implemented it and might get credit instead of them. So what’dya say, were you expecting me to support a violation? Your turn.
@djg, I’m not sure what double standard you’re accusing me of, so hard to respond.
I believe the U.S. Supreme Court should determine constitutionality, even if I disagree with recent decisions declaring corporations are people with the “free speech” right to buy elections with unlimited corporate (and shareholder) money.
So, Boehner’s suggestion, as you described it, that Congress determines constitutionality is silly. They already do that, I’m quite sure the 535 members of Congress believe the bills they vote “aye” on are constitutional.
^ Hey, gotta love the Supreme Court. Women don’t have Constitutional protection. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/scalia-constitution-does-not-p.html
Radish, I guess this is the order Obama just gave strengthening the Food Safety Regulations. That is one of the Reagan deregs which said that the food industry could regulate itself.
dtroutma,,, I was there when mine safety inspectors were ordered not to inspect mines unless invited by the mine owners.
radish - 2 come mind fec and the internet and epa and cap and trade
Clark Kent said, about 2 hours ago
Keep the criminal corporations and wall street on short leashes. Imprison the thieves of wall street and the politicians who let it happen including cheney-shrub
do not forget
frank ,dobb , timmy,clinton.
While we’re at it, try cheney-shrub-rumsfeld in the world court for their war crimes. And yes I know it’s unlikely to happen.
and gate and bho for intensive drone attacks on civilians in pakistan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/30/AR2010123003047_pf.html
article “Government by regulation…”
US Senate rejected Obama’s Section 1233 “end-of-life counseling” but a month ago Obama’s puppet Director of Medicare put it back into law, bypassing congress and the will of the people.
the Obama Interior Dept on 12/23/10 reversed a 2003 ruling and gave itself a federal Power Grab to “protect” land from vital and necessary domestic use, bypassing congress.
12/23/10 the Obama EPA “regulated” cap and trade anti-carbon rules rejected by congress.
and Bush may have used executive orders, but never to fundamentally change our form of government as Obama has done and plans to continue doing, and never to make Federal Power Grabs as Obama has done.
legal and moral powers can be used properly, but Obama and his appointed Czars (bypassing congressional approval) are ABUSING legal powers.
In 2010 the Obama administration and democratic-ruled congress passed 43 NEW major regulations on top of the mountain of existing regulations that require 157,000 Pages just to list. Those 43 new regulations cost US businesses $28 billion that might have been used to create new jobs and hire the unemployed.
One regulation alone, on effluent discharges from construction sites, cost $810.8 million annually and shut down 147 construction companies and caused the loss of 7,257 jobs.
Those existing federal regulations cost businesses $1.75 trillion a year, estimated by the Obama administration that Added the 43 new regs costing $28 billion more.
How’s that for hopey and changey Job Riddance????
(most “jobs” claimed created by Obama were taxpayer-paid or deficit borrowing paid jobs in the government! Thus adding to the $3 trillion fed Debt cheerfully passed by Obama and a Democratic 111th congress!)
DjGuardian, very well said. It is very true that many Republicans can be very rightly accused of hypocrisy, because we can see examples of where they have violated their own moral codes. Left wing Democrats, however, often have few moral codes at all, so their acting selfishly and irresponsibly is unremarkable and merely business as usual.
As an example, here’s Senator Obama discussing raising the debt ceiling in 2006:
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.
Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion.That is “trillion” with a “T.” That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.
And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.
Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities.”
An excellent speech when used against Bush, but what is he saying now?
Still no response to my pointing out that Republicans have said, quite literally, that if they were in charge, repeal of a blatant Constitutional violation wouldn’t even be up for a vote, it’d remain where it is. Republicans have hopped ALL over the 1 court decision finding one small portion of the Healthcare bill being considered a violation even though a previous case had found it valid, yet there has been NO such “luck” (for bigots) for DOMA or DADT, laws which Republicans blatantly defend for their “Family Values” vote. Democrats passed DADT repeal, at the cost of some of their political capital.
Republicans DO NOT CARE about Constitutional violations. You have absolutely NO WAY to refute this, given the evidence. They BRAGGED about it! Watch the DADT vote on C-Span!
We will need to continue borrowing money to pay for things we decided to buy on credit over the past few (not just TWO) years.
Stimulus, Medicare Part D, unfunded Tax Cuts, 2 unfunded wars and a 300% explosion in the DoD budget since Bush took over (Obama reduced it by 100 billion). It ain’t just social stuff that’s broken the bank, as much as you like to blame it on those things, but guess what, when you don’t pay for it, the bill comes due sometime!
woodwork over 13 years ago
Regulation is necessary, otherwise, those deterrmined to be rich will foist off shoddy and even dangerous products on the rest of us…look at some of the shoddy building practices inn other countries…take a look at “Madeoff with everybody’s money”, just for starters.
disgustedtaxpayer over 13 years ago
Soros in 2008 was calling for Obama to “govern” by White House edicts…and Obama has been doing it but in an abusive manner that bypasses Congress and the Law and the Will of The People.
no agency should be allowed to get away with using “regulations” which are supposed to obey the LAW and the will of congress which is supposed to express the will of the citizens, to carry out activities and rules and mandates the congress has by vote rejected!
the Senate refused Kyoto but fed agencies tried to implement treaty components rejected by the Senate…the “backdoor” Soros pushed.
When Congress and the express will of Americans say “no”— that should preclude any agency from sneaking “forbidden” powers onto the private sector, such as mandates and fines and penalties when businesses do legal and regular practises, but which offend the Econuts and Leftwing Liberals….it should also preclude Executive Orders from the Oval office!
believecommonsense over 13 years ago
^ Except Soros didn’t invent executive orders or signing statements. You’re conveniently forgetting that Bush used them both extensively. Your outrage would be more believable if it were even-handed.
cjkinsey over 13 years ago
the constitution doesn’t stop at article 1, there is also article 2 and this is perfectly within the presidential powers.
now the signing statements are entirely different when they say that the president won’t follow certain aspects of a law. That would be a reasonable argument.
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
Hey look, it’s the Constitution again. But remember, Constitutional violations are perfectly acceptable if Republicans back it.
pirate227 over 13 years ago
Regulations? We don’t need no stinking regulations! Salmonella for all!
Dtroutma over 13 years ago
It was about the second year of Reagan when my job included reviewing new or proposed “regulations”. In a one week period, I found 32 new regulations from the ADMINISTRATION, that ordered agencies to do THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what the laws passed by Congress called for. It only got worse, and again even FAR WORSE under “W” and Cheney. Reading through mining and oil drilling regulations (2007 was a prime year) changing MMS and resource agency rules to “favor” extraction industries will give anyone in the public nightmares, while industry built “pleasant dreams”.
Actually, Obama is reversing some of those “pro-industry” regulations that violated the law in the FIRST PLACE, and THAT has “industry” and K Street (our real Congress) very upset.
DjGuardian over 13 years ago
Breaking the Constitution isn’t acceptable for any party to do believecommonsense and Jade. That’s a clever cop out though. Yes, if these whiners and complainers are hypocritical in their charge against Dems’ actions while applauding Reps doing the same thing, then so be it.
However, being hypocritical is a hard charge to lay out on ignorance.
With that being said, would then you (believecommonsense and Jade) agree with the idea of Boener’s (i think it was his) that a bill be passed that requires every new bill to prove Constitutional muster for the bill in general and each of its parts or be invalidated? Or would you rather there still be entities outside of Congress as well as Congress itself that are allowed to operate outside of Constitutional bounds (even if you think the action taken would benefit you or adhere to your ideological desires)?
If you are not willing to accept those terms then you cannot lay the ‘Constitutional violations’ charge against Reps. Turning your own charge against you… if it’s okay for the Dems to do, then it’s okay for the Reps to do, as well.
If you don’t agree to that… then we have the good vs bad play. Dems become Cobra and Reps GI JOE. Why? Because then you are saying that Reps have to handle themselves to a higher standard than Dems (who in turn are allow to break any rule or principle they like so long as the outcome is desirable… method be bleeped). You would be admitting that Reps are the more principled, moral and ethical party because they actually have to adhere to a standard… one the Dems can ignore when ever it suits them, and be justified in doing so. Where as the Reps are never justified if they do the same thing.
It’s a double standard that makes you the ‘bad guy.’ I don’t think you want to go that route.
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
@DJGuardian - The “insurance mandate” is a Republican idea that has propagated itself for YEARS. If it is truly unconstitutional, how come it is that it’s been in every Republican counter to healthcare bills up till now? Why is it I can get fined by the State of Virginia if I do not purchase private car insurance to drive on roads paid for with my tax dollars? I’m fine with removing the mandate, and also remove the GOVERNMENT mandate that I have to buy PRIVATE car insurance every year or pay a $500 fine. I’m a good driver. Why should I have to pay a hundred+ dollars every month? I could put that combined money into paying for any actual damages. Oh wait, does this sound familiar? “But you could take the fine and not pay for car insurance.” gasp This sounds very familiar. Yeah, direct parallels to Healthcare.
Every member of the RNC up for chairman said they support the actions of this news item: http://www.dailytribune.com/articles/2010/12/29/news/doc4d1be1ae89ef6786077792.txt It’s a constitutional violation. Your opinion? The Republicans fought DADT repeal (another Constitutional violation) tooth and nail. McCain called the passage of DADT repeal / Constitutional rights for soldiers a sad day. Really, the hypocrisy here is so blatant. I stand by statement above. Republicans love Constitutional violations, especially ones that get them that evangelical vote. They’re only mad that Obama took one of their ideas and implemented it and might get credit instead of them. So what’dya say, were you expecting me to support a violation? Your turn.
believecommonsense over 13 years ago
@djg, I’m not sure what double standard you’re accusing me of, so hard to respond.
I believe the U.S. Supreme Court should determine constitutionality, even if I disagree with recent decisions declaring corporations are people with the “free speech” right to buy elections with unlimited corporate (and shareholder) money.
So, Boehner’s suggestion, as you described it, that Congress determines constitutionality is silly. They already do that, I’m quite sure the 535 members of Congress believe the bills they vote “aye” on are constitutional.
am I misinterpreting what Boehner is proposing?
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
^ Hey, gotta love the Supreme Court. Women don’t have Constitutional protection. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/scalia-constitution-does-not-p.html
Justice22 over 13 years ago
Radish, I guess this is the order Obama just gave strengthening the Food Safety Regulations. That is one of the Reagan deregs which said that the food industry could regulate itself.
dtroutma,,, I was there when mine safety inspectors were ordered not to inspect mines unless invited by the mine owners.
oneoldhat over 13 years ago
radish - 2 come mind fec and the internet and epa and cap and trade
Clark Kent said, about 2 hours ago
Keep the criminal corporations and wall street on short leashes. Imprison the thieves of wall street and the politicians who let it happen including cheney-shrub
do not forget frank ,dobb , timmy,clinton.
While we’re at it, try cheney-shrub-rumsfeld in the world court for their war crimes. And yes I know it’s unlikely to happen. and gate and bho for intensive drone attacks on civilians in pakistan
let the perp walks start
believecommonsense over 13 years ago
^^^ jade, that was an amazing statement even from Scalia. He’s scary.
disgustedtaxpayer over 13 years ago
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/30/AR2010123003047_pf.html article “Government by regulation…” US Senate rejected Obama’s Section 1233 “end-of-life counseling” but a month ago Obama’s puppet Director of Medicare put it back into law, bypassing congress and the will of the people.
the Obama Interior Dept on 12/23/10 reversed a 2003 ruling and gave itself a federal Power Grab to “protect” land from vital and necessary domestic use, bypassing congress.
12/23/10 the Obama EPA “regulated” cap and trade anti-carbon rules rejected by congress.
and Bush may have used executive orders, but never to fundamentally change our form of government as Obama has done and plans to continue doing, and never to make Federal Power Grabs as Obama has done.
legal and moral powers can be used properly, but Obama and his appointed Czars (bypassing congressional approval) are ABUSING legal powers.
disgustedtaxpayer over 13 years ago
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/new-regulations-2010-costing-28-billion
In 2010 the Obama administration and democratic-ruled congress passed 43 NEW major regulations on top of the mountain of existing regulations that require 157,000 Pages just to list. Those 43 new regulations cost US businesses $28 billion that might have been used to create new jobs and hire the unemployed.
One regulation alone, on effluent discharges from construction sites, cost $810.8 million annually and shut down 147 construction companies and caused the loss of 7,257 jobs.
Those existing federal regulations cost businesses $1.75 trillion a year, estimated by the Obama administration that Added the 43 new regs costing $28 billion more.
How’s that for hopey and changey Job Riddance???? (most “jobs” claimed created by Obama were taxpayer-paid or deficit borrowing paid jobs in the government! Thus adding to the $3 trillion fed Debt cheerfully passed by Obama and a Democratic 111th congress!)
Nemesys over 13 years ago
DjGuardian, very well said. It is very true that many Republicans can be very rightly accused of hypocrisy, because we can see examples of where they have violated their own moral codes. Left wing Democrats, however, often have few moral codes at all, so their acting selfishly and irresponsibly is unremarkable and merely business as usual.
As an example, here’s Senator Obama discussing raising the debt ceiling in 2006:
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.
Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion.That is “trillion” with a “T.” That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.
And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.
Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities.”
An excellent speech when used against Bush, but what is he saying now?
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
Still no response to my pointing out that Republicans have said, quite literally, that if they were in charge, repeal of a blatant Constitutional violation wouldn’t even be up for a vote, it’d remain where it is. Republicans have hopped ALL over the 1 court decision finding one small portion of the Healthcare bill being considered a violation even though a previous case had found it valid, yet there has been NO such “luck” (for bigots) for DOMA or DADT, laws which Republicans blatantly defend for their “Family Values” vote. Democrats passed DADT repeal, at the cost of some of their political capital.
Republicans DO NOT CARE about Constitutional violations. You have absolutely NO WAY to refute this, given the evidence. They BRAGGED about it! Watch the DADT vote on C-Span!
We will need to continue borrowing money to pay for things we decided to buy on credit over the past few (not just TWO) years.
Stimulus, Medicare Part D, unfunded Tax Cuts, 2 unfunded wars and a 300% explosion in the DoD budget since Bush took over (Obama reduced it by 100 billion). It ain’t just social stuff that’s broken the bank, as much as you like to blame it on those things, but guess what, when you don’t pay for it, the bill comes due sometime!
rockngolfer over 13 years ago
From AOL news
An ammended version of The Constitution will be read on the floor,
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/05/house-gop-might-want-to-skip-over-some-parts-of-constitution/?icid=main%7Chp-desktop%7Cdl11%7Csec1_lnk1%7C193648