“Republicans have said that this would be a big jobs generator. There is no evidence that that’s true.”Obama is not convinced the total net benefits of job creation for a region outweigh the cost to nation and Earth.
He said he thinks Canada can do more to curb emissions.
“I meant what I said; I'm going to evaluate this based on whether or not this is going to significantly contribute to carbon in our atmosphere. And there is no doubt that Canada at the source in those tar sands could potentially be doing more to mitigate carbon release.”This is what Obama takes time to make us understand.
“[M]y hope would be that any reporter who is looking at the facts would take the time to confirm that the most realistic estimates are this might create maybe 2,000 jobs during the construction of the pipeline – which might take a year or two – and then after that we’re talking about somewhere between 50 and 100 [chuckles] jobs in a economy of 150 million working people.”Balancing things, Obama also offers praise.
“there is a potential benefit for us integrating further with a reliable ally to the north our energy supplies.”BLAMO in the comments there.
44 comments:
"And if Congress thinks that what I’ve done is inappropriate or wrong in some fashion, they’re free to make that case. But there’s not an action that I take that you don't have some folks in Congress who say that I'm usurping my authority. Some of those folks think I usurp my authority by having the gall to win the presidency. And I don't think that's a secret. But ultimately, I’m not concerned about their opinions -- very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers."
What an ass we have as President.
"And if Congress thinks that what I’ve done is inappropriate or wrong in some fashion, they’re free to make that case. But there’s not an action that I take that you don't have some folks in Congress who say that I'm usurping my authority. Some of those folks think I usurp my authority by having the gall to win the presidency. And I don't think that's a secret. But ultimately, I’m not concerned about their opinions -- very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers."
That sounds right. I want to hear the case against it.
I believe I have read several times over the years that 80-85% of the members of Congress are lawyers.
As Will Rogers said, “The problem is not so much what we don't know, it's what we know that ain't so.” Our country's problem is what Obama thinks he knows that ain't so.
I hope and pray that Obama's side is trounced in the mid-terms and that prevents him from doing more damage. I also pray that after the next presidential election we elect someone with enough guts to purge, indict, convict, and imprison his cronies that he had seeded throughout the federal bureaucracy.
and my impression is that this holds true for politicians generally at whatever level of government.
Ken in SC,
What you are seeing today has a lot to do with the senior career bureaucrats being people that took a shower, got a haircut and a three-piece suit, and went to work for the Gov't during the Carter years.
What an ass we have as President.
What a friend we have in Jesus.
Aren't you all satisfied w/ the thousands of Solyndra jobs?
And if Congress thinks that what I’ve done is inappropriate or wrong in some fashion, they’re free to make that case. But there’s not an action that I take that you don't have some folks in Congress who say that I'm usurping my authority. Some of those folks think I usurp my authority by having the gall to win the presidency. And I don't think that's a secret. But ultimately, I’m not concerned about their opinions -- very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers
Its a straw man argument once again from the President. He is trying to delay a law that was passed (somewhat) legitimately because he said so. That's not right. And the people who are in charge of making the laws are calling him out on it. He chafes at that, so he goes on to paint every one who believes in the rule of law as some wingnut birthers? Give me a break.
I guess Obama needs to watch Schoolhouse rock again.
Aren't you all satisfied w/ the thousands of Solyndra jobs?
Glad, someone else caught the irony of badmouthing jobs that might not last more than a few years.
Here's the full context of that quote. He was being questioned by the freakin NYtimes for heaven's sake, not exactly going into the lion's den.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-on-unilateral-action-lawyers-i-dont-need-lawyers./article/2533569
phx is an unfortunate example of the M.C. Escher universe we now inhabit..
It's sad that we're not doing enough to discourage new energy development, because extractive industries never have any downsides and economic development is best pursued through the type of energy matrices exploited by such politically enlightened countries as Russia, Canada, Saudi Arabia and Iran. There's nothing a country's economy hates worse than incentivizing new technology.
And the people who are in charge of making the laws are calling him out on it.
The same ones who pre-emptively declared the ACA unconstitutional?
The same lawmakers can make laws that are later declared unconstitutional themselves.
Being given the power to make laws doesn't give one's opinions on the efficacy or constitutionality of said laws more weight. But having some legal training makes it more likely that those opinions will be based on more than just demagoguery.
Yes, R&B its called checks and balances. I don't see your point, unless its just for partisan cheerleading. Just because Congress wanted Obamacare to be declared unconstitutional did not make it so. The judicial branch got its chance to decide that and they did. That's their job, just like its Congress's job to make the laws and the President's job to sign or veto those laws. The President's job is not to decide that he changed his mind about a certain law that HE SIGNED and keep it from hitting the books years later.
Imagine if a Democratic House and Senate passed a law legalizing same sex marriage and then the President said, "Well, we're going to put this into law a year from now, because it would be hard for us to get all this male/male female/female paperwork changed. We need more time." Heads would explode. And they should.
DO NOT FEED THE ANIMAL!
Exploding heads notwithstanding, you do realize that laws are passed and implemented with delayed effect all the time, right?
As the branch charged with implementing laws, a responsible executive can and should speak to the feasibility of how, when and in what sense they are to be implemented. A partisan, cheerleading executive less concerned with responsible implementation, perhaps less so.
Hagar, Meade's down in the raccoon thread, talking about moles right now. Which is a pity because I'd have liked to have supplied a comment there linking to YouTube videos of an adorable wild raccoon named "Fred" who likes to eat cat food at a local home.
But it doesn't appear that there are any wild animals here, though. Just free ones and free-thinking ones. Which might offend those whose sense of freedom is limited to wild screaming, bold-faced caps locks, but probably not most free-thinking humans.
Obama's lack of common sense and stupidity in all things regarding economics never fails to astonish me.
What Obama said is a very law school thing to say.
"DO NOT FEED THE ANIMAL!"
I am not an animal!!!
Oh, you were talking about somebody else. I'm guess I'm a little oversensitive.
His expertise, of course, has shown us he knows best. 4 out of 5 US adults face near poverty, joblessness, or welfare.
phx said...
And if Congress thinks that what I’ve done is inappropriate or wrong in some fashion, they’re free to make that case. But there’s not an action that I take that you don't have some folks in Congress who say that I'm usurping my authority. Some of those folks think I usurp my authority by having the gall to win the presidency. And I don't think that's a secret. But ultimately, I’m not concerned about their opinions -- very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers.
That sounds right. I want to hear the case against it.
Oh, where to start?
How 'bout he isn't a Constitutional lawyer, either?
Then, there's the issue of him ignoring anything Congress or the courts say he doesn't want to hear.
And I don't doubt for an instant he isn't concerned about dissenting opinions - except for ways to silence them.
But, then, he didn't "have the gall to win the Presidency", he had the gall to steal it.
PS I believe, if Hagar is wrong on the percentage of lawyers in Congress, he's probably low.
"I am not an animal!!!"
Finally got your opportunity, eh :)
I am not a crook!
We have five million fewer full time jobs now than we had six years ago, and we're losing more every month. Clearly the President knows what he's doing (because he is a constitutional lawyer, donchaknow), so we should all quit criticizing him and go back to worshiping him like all the Dems do.
Obama & the Dems can't win on the Pipeline issue.
If he okays the pipeline, the enviros go apeshit. If he deep-sixes it, the labor unions go apeshit.
I'm sure that Obama would like for someone to just make it all go away. But it won't, 'cause it's his tar-baby.
How embarrassing for Democrats who understand economics. Both of them.
"Finally got your opportunity"
It was worth the wait.
I believe Ted Cruz would qualify as a "Constitutional lawyer."
In spades.
He could eat Obama's breakfast, lunch dinner and dessert. And have a cigar and a beer afterwards.
Congress functions as window dressing for The Obama Presidency.
That's all, "folks."
The Washington DC economy swaggers while the rest of the nation staggers.
"Why can't you hillbillies just be like us?" remark the DC pundits.
This can't end well.
@ Ritmo (who appears to be returning to type) As the branch charged with implementing laws, a responsible executive ...
And who might that be?
Anyone in mind?
Responsible is a word that appears to be fading extremely fast (check in with the math and sound guy down few threads) if not just a mirage to start with.
The Keystone Pipeline is the equivalent of handing Obama a gift of about 50,000 new good paying jobs [and yeah some of the jobs are temporary] and he is too stupid to accept it. It is impossible to think Obama gives a frig about the middle class.
It amuses me that some people still consider Obama to be a highly intelligent man.
I don't think Obama can be a constitutional lawyer - didn't he let his law license lapse? Or was that Michelle only?
As the branch charged with implementing laws, a responsible executive can and should speak to the feasibility of how, when and in what sense they are to be implemented.
Perhaps you can find the part of the US Constitution that supports your argument? The Executive takes an oath to faithfully execute his office. There is nothing about implementing laws. He executes the law, which means he performs the duty of it to the best of his ability. Further, this particular law doesn't ask him to determine feasibility. Rather, it explicitly states what is feasible and when it should be accomplished.
The only thing protecting Obama in this manner is the Senate. If Republicans win the majority in the Senate, and Obama fails to follow the law as clearly stated, this is simple grounds for impeachment. Alas, it's doubtful the GOP will accomplish that task, and so idiots everywhere will believe the President actually has powers not granted him by the US Constitution.
POTUS strongly dislikes Texas Tea.
How big a difference is there, really, between the word "implement" and "execute"?
My first GOOGLE return on the former yields the verb form as: Put (a decision, plan, agreement, etc.) into effect: "implement the treaty".
That sounds an awful lot like "executing", to me.
At my work, we might do an awful lot of deliberating on a policy before we carry it out. But once we do, it's not as if there aren't further decisions and considerations for how to fit the words of the policy to the reality of getting it to work.
It simply seems like wishful thinking, to me at least, that folks writing a policy, as removed as they are from its implementation (or if you like, "execution"), would be in a position to say, "Make the reality of how this should be carried out FIT the text of what we've written - regardless of any mismatch or gap between what we've imagined could be done and what must be done!"
A lot of work is done by agencies. The Senate regularly conducts hearings and receives testimony from agency heads to learn about how these people find ways to make up the difference between what legislation calls for and how it can be carried out. It's simply as naive to assume that every law is feasible (especially given resource constraints) as it is constitutional.
Running bureaucracies does not happen with a snap of the fingers, and I would hope that wouldn't be a partisan realization.
I listened through several hours of testimony from Barbara Boxer on her global warming panel. It's simply unbelievable.
The basic point many people have made is simple. Nothing the US does unilaterally will make a bit of difference to global warming, even if the warmistas are right. While currently at 15% of c02 output globally, actual and percentage of C02 the US emits is dropping fast, with the use of natural gas, and as China and India ramp up massively with coal fired plants China produces Solar panels, but does not use them. They export 99% of them, using only 1% of them.
Plus which, there is a 15 year pause in atmospheric increases in temperatures. The models have failed: they are now outside of the 95% confidence interval. Maybe that will change (I'm a skeptic, not a denier), but how these democrats continue to base damaging economic policy on failed "science" is amazing to me. Especially since the policies they want to adopt to stop global warming won't change anything.
Meanwhile, the energy policies are bizarre. The US has massive recoverable oil reserves. Getting oil from the Middle East is becoming increasingly expensive, but the value of the middle east and the wars would stop if there was less value to oil. I say, Develop our own resources, including with our allies in Canada, and let the Chinese have the ME.
Hagar, of course you are right about the federal bureaucracy. It's been going on since long before Obama. But now,something needs to be done about it. Under Obama they have become blatant. At least they used to give lip service to the Hatch Act, which is supposed to prevent electioneering on the job by federal employees.
Mr. Shovel Ready jobs that never showed up is worried that his sacred hatred of all things fossil fuel will actually do what he could never do? Create jobs? Thus he must kill it before it lives. He's an enemy of this country, what more do you need to know.
The difference between "implement" and "execute" comes when you suggest Obama's role is to "how and when". The law in question always says "how and when". The Oath Obama took says he would "execute"; which means "carry out or accomplish".
It doesn't really matter what you or I consider wishful thinking. What matters is the law passed by Congress and signed by Obama, which says exactly when the President must accomplish his task. I personally consider it wishful thinking that the Executive Branch, so far removed from healthcare, thinks they can regulate the entire industry. Unfortunately, Democrats thought otherwise.
Running bureaucracies does not happen with a snap of the fingers
Yeah, which is another reason bureaucracies shouldn't be involved in an individual's health. You have some great arguments R&B; too bad you don't apply them appropriately.
Anyway, we digress from the pipeline story.
I personally consider it wishful thinking that the Executive Branch, so far removed from healthcare, thinks they can regulate the entire industry. Unfortunately, Democrats thought otherwise.
This is an interesting way of looking at things.
Who regulates the practice of Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing, Pharmacy, Podiatry, Chiropractic, etc., generally?
I actually know the answer to this. It's up to the states, which do the same thing that the Federal government does in establishing agencies that run Medicare (quite well), as well as Medicaid for quite sometime. They do this through boards that the state empowers to have some autonomy in running that show on their own. And it's really not a partisan issue.
It is impossible to have a conversation on the "proper" role, let alone the proper actions of the executive branch, when one willfully denies the role of state boards and federal agencies which are empowered by those governments to run these things.
Post a Comment