Article

2010-02-13 Home Front: Politix

Obama Making Plans to Use Executive Power

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Gleresh Thamp8214 2010-02-13 05:08|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top

#1 This seems like a good outcome. Obama's abuses of executive power will be much easier to undo than legislation while still having the same damaging effects on the nation. Thus we get to sample the disaster and enjoy the suicide of the Democratic Party all wrapped in a neat relatively easily reversed package. Break out the popcorn!

Posted by AzCat 2010-02-13 12:53|| 2010-02-13 12:53|| Front Page Top

#2 For what its worth, Obama signed (38) Executive Orders during his first calendar year, 2009. I don't know how that stacks up with previous presidencies. Here is a list, if you are interested. LINK

Posted by Tom-Pa 2010-02-13 13:14|| 2010-02-13 13:14|| Front Page Top

#3 Nothing will endear Americans to the Marxists running the USA more than giving them a good glimpse of the precipice. Kill more industry since 18% unemployment/underemployment is not enough. Say "Hello" to $5 gas and $.25kWh electricity and 25% un/under employment. Spit.

Posted by ed 2010-02-13 13:18|| 2010-02-13 13:18|| Front Page Top

#4 BTW, the 9.7% unemployment rate the Obama admin was crowing about:
An exodus of discouraged workers from the job market kept the U.S. unemployment rate from climbing above 10 percent in December, economists said.

Had the labor force not decreased by 661,000 last month, the jobless rate would have been 10.4 percent, according to economists including David Rosenberg at Gluskin Sheff & Associates in Toronto and Harm Bandholz at UniCredit Research in New York.
...
About 1.7 million Americans opted out of the workforce (therefore not counted) from July through December, representing a 1.1 percent drop that marks the biggest six-month decrease since 1961, the Labor Department report showed. The share of the population in the labor force last month fell to the lowest level in 24 years.

The so-called underemployment rate -- which includes part- time workers whod prefer a full-time position and people who want work but have given up looking -- rose to 17.3 percent in December from 17.2 percent.

Posted by ed 2010-02-13 13:26|| 2010-02-13 13:26|| Front Page Top

#5 Nothing will endear Americans to the Marxists running the USA more than giving them a good glimpse of the precipice

What I was thinking. It'll be interesting to see where his poll numbers go once this gets wide recognition.

Posted by Gomez Threter7450 2010-02-13 13:49|| 2010-02-13 13:49|| Front Page Top

#6 I don't know how that stacks up with previous presidencies.

1937 to present:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html

(Looks like W signed 54 executive orders his first year in office).

Posted by Gomez Threter7450 2010-02-13 14:05|| 2010-02-13 14:05|| Front Page Top

#7 (Looks like W signed 54 executive orders his first year in office).

Yeah! How many of W's were intended to kill the country and install Marxism against the will of the people?

Posted by Alistaire Angang6298 2010-02-13 14:39|| 2010-02-13 14:39|| Front Page Top

#8 By my count -- 19 of those 54 (count from a quick look) included were a direct result of the tragedy of 911 -- putting into place, structure for fighting the War on Terror

Math -- 54-19=35 (less than The One's 38 without 911)

10 of them put in an Order of Succession for 10 Departments of the government. Pre 9/11, there were no plans for who is now in charge. (I think the House even tightened up their succession plan)

Posted by Sherry 2010-02-13 16:20|| 2010-02-13 16:20|| Front Page Top

#9 It's not the number, it's the content. GW signed a bunch in his first year of course- 2001 was a doozy for all kinds of federal action. The question is whether a president uses any of them in ways that remove legislative oversight.

Posted by Free Radical 2010-02-13 16:22|| 2010-02-13 16:22|| Front Page Top

#10 RF - your right, it is all in the content -- and the Obama "content" is one of expanding government offices, protecting unions, and the revoking of Bush's This, and Bush's That
10 -- "not Bush" or "amend Bush" or "revoke Bush"
6 -- concerning Unions
11 -- expansion of government by committee or department
(not an in-depth reading, of course. Amending this up to as many 10 amending EO's in one EO.)

Posted by Sherry 2010-02-13 17:10|| 2010-02-13 17:10|| Front Page Top

#11 And... at least 20 of Bush's were concerning national security -- 0 of Obama's concern national security, except the ones he revoked or amended of Bush's.

Posted by Sherry 2010-02-13 17:25|| 2010-02-13 17:25|| Front Page Top

#12 Sherry- that's sort of what I figured; I didn't have the energy to dope-fiend the contents of either Obama or Bush. If there was such a thing as a 'newspaper' here in the US, someone could probably write an interesting story just tearing the EOs apart and getting comments on their meaning.

Posted by Free Radical 2010-02-13 18:09|| 2010-02-13 18:09|| Front Page Top

#13 Democracy is the ability to live and work together
with people you can't stand. Obama hasn't that ability, hence E.O. to curtail his own faults.

Posted by Ebbugum Oppressor of the Danes8943 2010-02-13 21:06|| 2010-02-13 21:06|| Front Page Top

23:32 Marilyn Thrineper8949
23:24 746
23:21 Frank G
23:20 Pappy
23:18 trailing wife
23:13 746
23:10 rjschwarz
22:54 Mitch H.
22:45 Frank G
22:25 tipper
22:20 Marilyn Thrineper8949
22:17 Gomez Threter7450
22:16 Marilyn Thrineper8949
22:11 notascrename
22:00 tipper
21:51 49 Pan
21:51 Procopius2k
21:36 Unavick the Kid7772
21:35 49 Pan
21:28 abu do you love
21:22 Injun Thraviting6891
21:10 Old Patriot
21:06 Ebbugum Oppressor of the Danes8943
21:00 Pappy