Executive Orders

President Obama is expected to use Executive Orders more frequently since he cannot get Congress to do anything constructive.

According to Wikipedia,

Quote :

The President can issue rules, regulations, and instructions called executive orders, which have the binding force of law upon federal agencies but do not require congressional approval. Also the powers of presidency is almost unlimited.

Personally, I believe this is a power that should be used sparingly.  If the predictions are correct (that he will be issuing a lot of Executive Orders), I think this is going to come back and bite him on the ass... and the Dems as well.

Do any of y'all have heartburn over the use of Executive Orders?

They should only be used for the good of the country on things approved by the majority of the LEGAL citizens, NOT to approve something the other party will not pass, no matter who the president is.. EVERY law passed should be for every person in the country, including the politicians..

They can be a useful tool but should be limited to immediate crisis intervention or providing direction to Federal agencies to accomplish an immediate goal within constitutional boundaries. They should not be used to bypass Congress on issues "that can wait". The latest example of increasing federal minimum wages for future contracted employees is a scam designed to elicit "friendly" votes in this years election. BHO would be better off spending time trying to get the two houses to work together instead of jetting around the country stumping for less-than-half measures to improve the average Americans situation. That's pitiful smoke and mirrors as most Americans realized long ago this emperor has no pants.

nochain wrote:

They can be a useful tool but should be limited to immediate crisis intervention or providing direction to Federal agencies to accomplish an immediate goal within constitutional boundaries. They should not be used to bypass Congress on issues "that can wait". The latest example of increasing federal minimum wages for future contracted employees is a scam designed to elicit "friendly" votes in this years election. BHO would be better off spending time trying to get the two houses to work together instead of jetting around the country stumping for less-than-half measures to improve the average Americans situation. That's pitiful smoke and mirrors as most Americans realized long ago this emperor has no pants.

 
   Long past time that he got out of campaign mode...Laughed when Sen Reid told some senators up for re-election and facing tough battles not to run away from the cowh....easy for ole Harry that just was re-elected...The executive orders certainly have a place but were never intended to be a primary way to govern circumventing congress.Historically used in the past because of the difficulty during an emergency to contact or have congress return to DC but that's not the case today...Believe it was Harry and Nancy that had a fit when President Bush used this tacitic a very few times...and now they support this tactic...

2014 elections are 10 months away.. :-)

Jake92 wrote:

2014 elections are 10 months away..  :-)

Well they've already raised wages by executive order...can you imagine how many freebies will be offered before the elections?...

Yes E, I have huge heartburn over the use of executive orders. In fact, I have been bitching about it darn near non-stop since I read about it in the news. But nochain summarized my entire bitch-session very well, so I'll leave it at that aside from adding that I have been extremely irritated with the media because they keep erroneously stating that he is raising the minimum wage... not that he is raising the minimum wage for federal contractors, which is a comletely and totally, RADICALLY different thing. That has been bugging the CRAP out of me. 

And really, like, good for him. Whoop-dee-doo. How many freaking people is that going to affect? Twelve? Grand total?? Yaaayyyy, Obaaammmaaahhhhh..... :/

Ricey, there are a LOT of federal contractors.. A lot of federal civil service jobs have been filled by contractors as the civil service employees retired or just left.. They have fewer benefits including less paid holidays and leave time.. Basically, it saves the govt a little money in the short term.. MANY of the jobs can be changed to regular civil service after time, but there is no guarantee.. I retired in Nov 2012 and the job has no been filled yet, but 2 active duty people are doing it..

But how many federal contractors make minimum wage? I doubt that many, but hey... I could be wrong.

I agree most make more than minimum wage, but most of the jobs are not long term employment..  It MIGHT be a 3-6 month job driving a fuel truck in the middle east or a janitor job in a hospital..  MOST of them were jobs once completed by active duty people, then changed to civil service when the active duty numbers were cut OR the active duty people were sent to the middle east..  I know at times, 20% of the staff at the navy hospital were in the middle east because there just aren't enough active duty people since the allowable numbers were cut by congress repeatedly over the last 20-40 years..  It's the same with the ones actually on the front lines.  Congress decided to send 100,000 to the middle east, but only 90,000 are eligable to go.  They make up the rest with temporary contractors who might disarm bombs, drive fuel trucks, or cook the meals.. Some of them are temporary workers filling the spot of an active duty person who deployed to the middle east.. I know some of the dental hygiene people on the base are contractors..

I agree that it's a messed up situation, Jake, but my only point was basically in agreement with nochain that he's made this executive order in effort to gain political points with certain people and not in order to actually help people. If his motive was to help people, then why the hell didn't he use his stinkin executive power to raise the minimum wage for the entire working class?? And by asking that I do not mean that I think he should have... purely rhetorical.

I agree 100% Ricey.. Since 2006 I believe, the parties have spent more time bad mouthing each other than trying to compromise and pass something the majority of the taxpayers want..

When 1 party wins a few states with a LOT of representatives votes one way, the other party can forget about winning the vote .. Do the 143 representatives from CA, FL, NY, and TX reflect the desires or the other 46 states?? If CA (with 53 representatives) has 27 voting 1 way and 26 the other, the winning side gets all 53 votes. It is hard for other states to have an impact on the election if they only have a few representatives.. 13 states only have 1 representative and 5 have 2.. That means 18 states voters combined can be outvoted by Florida (27), NY (27), or TX (36) voters in any bills that come up OR elections..

I agree they should be very limited to "emergency" type situations ie; natural disasters, wars, etc...

OY! I very much wish that our country would get out of the whole two party mindset, but that is a whole 'nother discussion!  

The only thing you say that I disagree with is that I think the parties have been preoccupied with bad-mouthing and mudslinging for a lot longer than since 2006. Seems to me that is their favorite pastime.

I agree that it's been a lot longer than since 2006, but that is basically when the latest BS started of blaming Bush for everything wrong in the world, something they are still doing.. I did NOT agree with everything either Bush wanted, but they both put the good of the country before the good of the party..  Remember, the Democrats also voted to send the military to the middle east and Afghanistan after 9/11..  BOTH parties could have brought them home and BOTH parties could have given them what they needed to win, but haven't..  
JR worked with a democratic congress and still got things done from 2006-2008..  Since 2008, the blame has been on Bush, who hasn't had any power at all since Obama was sworn in..  
I do NOT blame everything on Obama, but put most of the gridlock on Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi..

Based on BHOs very weak SOTU address it's clear he has realized he is unable to "lead" either the House or Senate toward a path of cooperation so his intent is to bypass them at every opportunity. His failure as a "leader" was obvious long before 2012 but even given another 4 years it's apparent he learned nothing in his first term. He is the Hollow President.

mediawatcher wrote:

Jake92 wrote:

2014 elections are 10 months away..  :-)

    Well they've already raised wages by executive order...can you imagine how many freebies will be offered before the elections?...

Federal contractor's wages only. He shouldn't sign an order raising theirs unless he signs an order raising everyones. As for whether he should do so or not, it actually is becoming an emergency situation that is negatively impacting the ability of the government's function, so I think he should be able to do so. The PNJ reported the other day that over half the people receiving food stamps are minimum wage Americans who work 40 hours a week. They are draining the coffers of the food stamp program.
I see no problem with an executive order in a national emergency situation, which this is for millions of hard working citizens who are only being paid minimum wage.

Otter wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

Jake92 wrote:

2014 elections are 10 months away..  :-)

    Well they've already raised wages by executive order...can you imagine how many freebies will be offered before the elections?...

Whose wages? I haven't heard that the federal minimum wage has been raised by executive order. I've heard that Obama plans to do that, but I've also heard that he's not an American, he wasn't legally elected and he's going to go around the constitution so he can run again, none of which is true.
How about a source on that one?

'

Federal contractor minimum wages - purely a political maneuver that will result in no benefit since it affects future contracts - contractors will just increase their bid on a contract to accommodate it. Translation - TAXPAYERS are funding a political snow job. Again.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/28/obama-minimum-wage_n_4677355.html

Jake92 wrote:

I agree that it's been a lot longer than since 2006, but that is basically when the latest BS started of blaming Bush for everything wrong in the world, something they are still doing.. I did NOT agree with everything either Bush wanted, but they both put the good of the country before the good of the party..  Remember, the Democrats also voted to send the military to the middle east and Afghanistan after 9/11..  BOTH parties could have brought them home and BOTH parties could have given them what they needed to win, but haven't..  
JR worked with a democratic congress and still got things done from 2006-2008..  Since 2008, the blame has been on Bush, who hasn't had any power at all since Obama was sworn in..  
I do NOT blame everything on Obama, but put most of the gridlock on Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi..

Excuse me. It started with the unnecessary impeachment of Bill Clinton. This country was ripped apart along party lines during that impeachment and the tear has never healed. There was a deep hatred for the Clintons that caused Republicans to even claim they were murderers.
You can't say it started with Bush because it did not.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/poll-bill-clinton-is-more-popular-than-ever/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

That's the kind of article that gets Republicans goats even today.

A lot of Republicans, the majority I'd guess, still can't understand why the majority of Americans don't dislike Bill Clinton.   Until they understand that Americans are not as judgmental  as they are, we're going to keep on having problems.

It wasn't Democrats that tried to get rid of a very popular president because he was a sex maniac. We remember a lot of very good presidents during the past couple of centuries- Thomas Jefferson included- who were unable to keep their pants buttoned. The great majority of them lied about it during their lifetimes as well. That was the single most divisive action of the last 20 years- impeaching a very popular president who still enjoys the approval of 75% of Americans today.

nochain wrote:

Otter wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

Jake92 wrote:

2014 elections are 10 months away..  :-)

    Well they've already raised wages by executive order...can you imagine how many freebies will be offered before the elections?...

Whose wages? I haven't heard that the federal minimum wage has been raised by executive order. I've heard that Obama plans to do that, but I've also heard that he's not an American, he wasn't legally elected and he's going to go around the constitution so he can run again, none of which is true.
How about a source on that one?

'

Federal contractor minimum wages - purely a political maneuver that will result in no benefit since it affects future contracts - contractors will just increase their bid on a contract to accommodate it. Translation - TAXPAYERS are funding a political snow job. Again.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/28/obama-minimum-wage_n_4677355.html

Check my post just above yours and you'll see that I edited it just as you were responding to it. And you'll see my reaction. He should have raised the minimum wage nationwide instead of just for federal contractors. American families who work under the minimum wage are facing a crisis today. They are the majority of people on food stamps now. You'll either let employers raise their wages or we the taxpayers will fork out more money for food stamps and medical care for the poor.

Otter wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

Jake92 wrote:

2014 elections are 10 months away..  :-)

    Well they've already raised wages by executive order...can you imagine how many freebies will be offered before the elections?...

Federal contractor's wages only. He shouldn't sign an order raising theirs unless he signs an order raising everyones. As for whether he should do so or not, it actually is becoming an emergency situation that is negatively impacting the ability of the government's function, so I think he should be able to do so. The PNJ reported the other day that over half the people receiving food stamps are minimum wage Americans who work 40 hours a week. They are draining the coffers of the food stamp program.
I see no problem with an executive order in a national emergency situation, which this is for millions of hard working citizens who are only being paid minimum wage.

What do you think small businesses would do if the minimum wage was raised to $10.10 or whatever? My guess is they would cut hours or staff - or simply close. Some small business margins are so small they couldn't take the hit. Factor in potential ACA costs and you have an imperfect storm. Wages are stagnant because of corporate greed. Look at the medical profession - very heavy influence in Pensacola - Doctors make enormous salaries while most of their staff are paid less than $10 per hour. There has been a shift from companies taking of their staff to one of owners/shareholders taking care of only themselves. More federal mandates aren't going to help and I don't think a cultural shift is likely either.

Otter wrote:

nochain wrote:

Otter wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

Jake92 wrote:

2014 elections are 10 months away..  :-)

    Well they've already raised wages by executive order...can you imagine how many freebies will be offered before the elections?...

Whose wages? I haven't heard that the federal minimum wage has been raised by executive order. I've heard that Obama plans to do that, but I've also heard that he's not an American, he wasn't legally elected and he's going to go around the constitution so he can run again, none of which is true.
How about a source on that one?

'

Federal contractor minimum wages - purely a political maneuver that will result in no benefit since it affects future contracts - contractors will just increase their bid on a contract to accommodate it. Translation - TAXPAYERS are funding a political snow job. Again.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/28/obama-minimum-wage_n_4677355.html

Check my post just above yours and you'll see that I edited it just as you were responding to it. And you'll see my reaction. He should have raised the minimum wage nationwide instead of just for federal contractors.  American families who work under the minimum wage are facing a crisis today. They are the majority of people on food stamps now. You'll either let employers raise their wages or we the taxpayers will fork out more money for food stamps and medical care for the poor.

My guess would lean toward the taxpayer option based on my previous comment. The Middle Class no longer exists, the U.S. has sunk to a Rich/Poor country.

Otter, I don't care how many women Clinton had sex with. The biggest thing I dislike about him, and his f'ing wife is that they BOTH went to Russia and protested AGAINST our military during the Vietnam War after our military was sent in by Kennedy, another Democrat.

Again, the biggest problem is Reid and Pelosi doing everything possible for the ILLEGAL aliens, no matter how much it hurts the taxpayers.. I would LOVE changing the tax system to a national sales tax, so at least the ILLEGALS would be paying taxes on everything they buy, just like the legal citizens instead of paying NO income taxes..

nochain wrote:

Otter wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

Jake92 wrote:

2014 elections are 10 months away..  :-)

    Well they've already raised wages by executive order...can you imagine how many freebies will be offered before the elections?...

Federal contractor's wages only. He shouldn't sign an order raising theirs unless he signs an order raising everyones. As for whether he should do so or not, it actually is becoming an emergency situation that is negatively impacting the ability of the government's function, so I think he should be able to do so. The PNJ reported the other day that over half the people receiving food stamps are minimum wage Americans who work 40 hours a week. They are draining the coffers of the food stamp program.
I see no problem with an executive order in a national emergency situation, which this is for millions of hard working citizens who are only being paid minimum wage.

What do you think small businesses would do if the minimum wage was raised to $10.10 or whatever? My guess is they would cut hours or staff - or simply close. Some small business margins are so small they couldn't take the hit. Factor in potential ACA costs and you have an imperfect storm. Wages are stagnant because of corporate greed. Look at the medical profession - very heavy influence in Pensacola - Doctors make enormous salaries while most of their staff are paid less than $10 per hour. There has been a shift from companies taking of their staff to one of owners/shareholders taking care of only themselves. More federal mandates aren't going to help and I don't think a cultural shift is likely either.

That's been the argument every time they've raised the minimum wage and it just hasn't caused the economy to collapse yet. Right now we the people are paying for those food stamps to subsidize workers on minimum wage because their wealthy corporate bosses won't pay them a living wage. They're not going to change their minds about keeping the profits to buy bigger yachts out of some religious conversion. They will have to be forced to do so by law. It's pretty much always been that way and it always will be.

Jake92 wrote:

Otter, I don't care how many women Clinton had sex with.  The biggest thing I dislike about him, and his f'ing wife is that they BOTH went to Russia and protested AGAINST our military during the Vietnam War after our military was sent in by Kennedy, another Democrat.

Again, the biggest problem is Reid and Pelosi doing everything possible for the ILLEGAL aliens, no matter how much it hurts the taxpayers..  I would LOVE changing the tax system to a national sales tax, so at least the ILLEGALS would be paying taxes on everything they buy, just like the legal citizens instead of paying NO income taxes..  

Jake, once again, somebody has told you something that isn't true. The Clintons did protest the Vietnam war and so did hundreds of thousands of other young people back during that era. They did not go to Russia and protest- Americans weren't just hopping over to Russia back during those days. Clinton protested in England where he was in school on a Rhodes Scholarship. Hillary protested, as far as I know, here in the US.
This country has ALWAYS had protestors during every war we've ever had. Charles Lindbergh was one of them during WWII.  At least the Clintons were protesting a war that is pretty much acknowledged to have been wrong for us to fight.  It's called free speech and free thought and we don't always have to say our military is right in fighting a war just because they are already doing it.
You can support the military just as strongly by fighting to bring them home as you can by waving your flag and making threats.
When you see yourself or your country making a mistake, you are obliged to point it out. That's not being anti-American.  It's the American way, as a matter of fact.


If more Americans had had the guts and will to protest our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which most Americans now say have had no effect) then several thousand American troops might not have had to die for nothing.
That is supporting the troops, IMO.

Clinton DID go to Moscow in 69/70..

I agree there is nothing wrong in being anti war, but everything wrong in NOT supporting the military who are already there after being sent by the president AND congress..
A few of the worst things are NOT giving them the tools they need due to political parties spending the time argueing rather than COMPROMISING and making sure they have what they need ie; hardened humvees to prevent injuries and deaths from IEDs and other things they want..

WHY not ensure they have flak jackets/bullet proof vests that will stop a bullet but costs more money?? (Many parents bought them in the states and sent them to their sons and daughters already in the middle east)..

WHY spend billions on tanks that are NOT wanted and airplanes that are never used. It's to keep people employed in tank and airplane factories..

WHY have our military wearing clothes that can't prevent burn injuries?? Nomex is used in some types of clothing used by the military, but not many.. Burns are some of the worst and costliest injuries to treat, but are very common with IEDs..

I would LOVE bringing the military back TODAY.. One of Obama's promises during his campaign in 2008 was to bring them home as soon as possible.. They are still there, but with less support than ever.. Another campaign promise was to close the prison in Cuba and do something with the prisoners.. They are still there..