jjamie12 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 NY Times OpEd The most salient point (imo): Furthermore, when extending federal authority, the Obama folks never seem to ask how Republicans will use this power when they regain the White House. The Democrats trust themselves to set private-sector salaries and use extralegal means to go after malefactors, but would they trust a future Dick Cheney? Has any Democrat stopped to ask themselves this very important question? I realize that this board isn't a big "I'm smart enough to understand that there are things I don't know" place (nor is it meant to be... it's not a philosophy board, afterall) but: This is a thought-provoking piece from a: 'Wait a tick, we won't ALWAYS be in power' perspective, and that is certainly political in nature... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsNYC Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Dems are convinced that with the One's anointment that conservatism is dead and won't ever hold power again.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 NY Times OpEd The most salient point (imo): Has any Democrat stopped to ask themselves this very important question? I realize that this board isn't a big "I'm smart enough to understand that there are things I don't know" place (nor is it meant to be... it's not a philosophy board, afterall) but: This is a thought-provoking piece from a: 'Wait a tick, we won't ALWAYS be in power' perspective, and that is certainly political in nature... It's a question of most people being convinced that the solution to "big government" is "more big government, but for MY side of the aisle." Wait 4-12 years, and watch the Republicans start passing nonsense increasing their power, to make up for the power the Democrats are now giving themselves (in response to the power the Republicans granted themselves 6-8 years ago...) And to a significant degree, it's less a political dynamic than it is a bureaucratic one. It is very much in the nature of bureaucracy to grow beyond a point where it serves any useful purpose, and then become self-justifying and very hard to dismantle. DHS is a good example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted October 27, 2009 Author Share Posted October 27, 2009 It's a question of most people being convinced that the solution to "big government" is "more big government, but for MY side of the aisle." Wait 4-12 years, and watch the Republicans start passing nonsense increasing their power, to make up for the power the Democrats are now giving themselves (in response to the power the Republicans granted themselves 6-8 years ago...) And to a significant degree, it's less a political dynamic than it is a bureaucratic one. It is very much in the nature of bureaucracy to grow beyond a point where it serves any useful purpose, and then become self-justifying and very hard to dismantle. DHS is a good example. Agree completely with the first paragraph. Hadn't thought about it as a bureaucratic dynamic vs. political, but that certainly makes sense when you think about the fact that projects get done because there's 'extra money' this year, and if you don't use it, you'll lose it for next year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 NY Times OpEd The most salient point (imo): Has any Democrat stopped to ask themselves this very important question? I realize that this board isn't a big "I'm smart enough to understand that there are things I don't know" place (nor is it meant to be... it's not a philosophy board, afterall) but: This is a thought-provoking piece from a: 'Wait a tick, we won't ALWAYS be in power' perspective, and that is certainly political in nature... The flipside of the argument is that the current administration is perfectly content in hiding behind the huge wall that the previous administration built around the Executive Branch. .. the times they are a changin ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Agree completely with the first paragraph. Hadn't thought about it as a bureaucratic dynamic vs. political, but that certainly makes sense when you think about the fact that projects get done because there's 'extra money' this year, and if you don't use it, you'll lose it for next year... Every government contractor knows this dynamic. I used to work for private contractors that did multi-million dollar construction projects for the Navy. When we'd save money on a project, in any way, we would have to identify the savings so the Navy could add more to the project to make sure that it didn't come in underbudget. Underbudget was always a huge problem. We used to have meetings about how to best spend millions we'd save so the Navy could request more money for the following year. Overbudget was a problem in theory, but usually it just came with a "bad job" speech followed by the Navy cutting a check to us and increasing their funds request for the following year. Everyone in government knows this cycle. It's why Obama's 2010 budget is up 13% from 2009. It's disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Every government contractor knows this dynamic. I used to work for private contractors that did multi-million dollar construction projects for the Navy. When we'd save money on a project, in any way, we would have to identify the savings so the Navy could add more to the project to make sure that it didn't come in underbudget. Underbudget was always a huge problem. We used to have meetings about how to best spend millions we'd save so the Navy could request more money for the following year. Overbudget was a problem in theory, but usually it just came with a "bad job" speech followed by the Navy cutting a check to us and increasing their funds request for the following year. Everyone in government knows this cycle. It's why Obama's 2010 budget is up 13% from 2009. It's disgusting. But 3% profit margins from health insurance companies? Windfall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 At least we can all agree that the eavesdropping that the NSA did under Bush that had the left hyperventilating has stopped. Hasn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 At least we can all agree that the eavesdropping that the NSA did under Bush that had the left hyperventilating has stopped.Hasn't it? No. Because the Obama Administration thinks they're not bound by federal law. (Seriously, that was their argument in court. FISA doesn't apply, because the White House doesn't fall under jurisdiction of federal law.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted October 28, 2009 Author Share Posted October 28, 2009 No. Because the Obama Administration thinks they're not bound by federal law. (Seriously, that was their argument in court. FISA doesn't apply, because the White House doesn't fall under jurisdiction of federal law.) I don't remember all the details, but wasn't that essentially the Bush Administration's argument, as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 I don't remember all the details, but wasn't that essentially the Bush Administration's argument, as well? No, the Bush Administration said FISA didn't apply because one end of the calls in question was in a foreign country, hence not subject to federal law, and that continuing the case posed a grave threat to national security. The Obama Administration used that same argument, but added that the government isn't bound by any federal statute with respect to communications eavesdropping. Maybe a shade of difference...but a scary one. The DOJ under Obama is making a much more general argument on a downright dangerous principle (that the federal government isn't bound by federal law). Which fits nicely with the general theme of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frit0 Bandit0 Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 In advance of the current new pay restrictions, 12 out of the 25 highest-paid executives have already left A.I.G ...and they are now in direct competition with AIG ... Now Reed wants to curb bailout. This bailout fiasco is showing how horribly inept this administration and congress are. Their claim "We have to do something" should have been tempered with "Can we !@#$ this up even worse" Gives a whole new meaning to "Yes we can" and "Change" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 In advance of the current new pay restrictions, 12 out of the 25 highest-paid executives have already left A.I.G ...and they are now in direct competition with AIG ... Now Reed wants to curb bailout. This bailout fiasco is showing how horribly inept this administration and congress are. Their claim "We have to do something" should have been tempered with "Can we !@#$ this up even worse" Gives a whole new meaning to "Yes we can" and "Change" The bailout preceded this administration and congress. Not that the current guys are actually helping things, of course... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frit0 Bandit0 Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 The bailout preceded this administration and congress. Not that the current guys are actually helping things, of course... Your right...and my point of contention is primarily with congress as it seemed to me that Pelosi and gang pushed this administration around in the beginning...hence my underlying issue with this administration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Your right...and my point of contention is primarily with congress as it seemed to me that Pelosi and gang pushed this administration around in the beginning...hence my underlying issue with this administration I don't see it as Crazy and the Fun bunch pushing the administration around as much as I do: Rahm Emmanuel and his friend from Chicago letting them take all the heat for their ridiculousness, and then coming in later to "save the day". This way, they can appear to be leading on "compromising and working together" and can show that they are in fact practicing "new politics". Like most liberal plans however, this one has backfired, because they didn't think it through and account for all the possible consequences/outcomes. The chief being that: not taking the lead on each issue they campaigned on has made them look weak, and, has made them look like they can't control an obvious nutbag in Pelosi, therefore, they look even weaker. This weakness has not been lost on Pelosi, or her "buddy" Harry Reid, and now they get to be even more nuts. Now that Pleosi/Reid have been unintentionally "empowered", the administration can't do anything to stop them insisting on things like a public option, and hauling their asses down with them. Reid/Pelosi are now the epitome of an albatross hanging around Obama's neck. But honestly, what did you expect? Did you really expect Obama, now clearly defined as an opportunist, to lead, take all the heat, and drive his agenda point by point? Sorry if you did, time to get your naivete meter checked before you set your expectations. Opportunists, by definition, don't lead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 No, the Bush Administration said FISA didn't apply because one end of the calls in question was in a foreign country, hence not subject to federal law, and that continuing the case posed a grave threat to national security. The Obama Administration used that same argument, but added that the government isn't bound by any federal statute with respect to communications eavesdropping. Maybe a shade of difference...but a scary one. The DOJ under Obama is making a much more general argument on a downright dangerous principle (that the federal government isn't bound by federal law). Which fits nicely with the general theme of this thread. You sure about that? I thought that they were just extending the original argument that FISA didn't apply because Congress authorized the war and that FISA shouldn't apply anyway because it doesn't have jurisdiction over the executive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 No. Because the Obama Administration thinks they're not bound by federal law. (Seriously, that was their argument in court. FISA doesn't apply, because the White House doesn't fall under jurisdiction of federal law.) Well, they haven't rehired Craig Livingstone yet, have they? We must be okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts