Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Despite the best efforts of the GOP to block him, Obama recess appoints the first ever head of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency   (thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com ) divider line
    More: Hero, President Obama, GOP, protection agency, chiefs, Republican, Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Ohio Attorney General, Richard Cordray  
•       •       •

2747 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Jan 2012 at 1:45 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



516 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-04 04:50:18 PM  

Garet Garrett: A Dark Evil Omen: You know, given that Obama has been harping on reaching across the aisle since the beginning of his presidency and has publicly tried and tried and tried to work with the Republicans, and has made no secret about this...

Personally, I prefer bourbon to Kool-Aid.


I can tell, because if you somehow are this disconnected from reality you must be piss-drunk all the time.
 
2012-01-04 04:52:20 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Scott Brown backs Obama naming Cordray: "I would have strongly preferred ..normal confirmation process [but] system is completely broken."- Michael McAuliff (@mmcauliff) January 4, 2012


That's a good little MA Republican.


I've been saying for awhile that the government needs more Scott Browns. Just... not in my state.
 
2012-01-04 04:52:32 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Garet Garrett: A Dark Evil Omen: You know, given that Obama has been harping on reaching across the aisle since the beginning of his presidency and has publicly tried and tried and tried to work with the Republicans, and has made no secret about this...

Personally, I prefer bourbon to Kool-Aid.

I can tell, because if you somehow are this disconnected from reality you must be piss-drunk all the time.


Personally I am just waiting for him to leave so we can all start the circlejerk (finally).
 
2012-01-04 04:53:34 PM  

Garet Garrett: KiltedBastich: Garet Garrett: Our Boobies-partisan President

I would think that most heterosexual males are Boobies-partisan. I know I am.

Awesome. Didn't think of that happening.


Come to think of it, I bet most women are Boobies-partisan too, given that they all have them. Especially the lesbian ones, they are Boobies-partisan about their own and other women's too!
 
2012-01-04 04:56:45 PM  

verbaltoxin: namatad: I love threads like this. Always a couple new people to add to my ignore list.

Aw see, this ignore thing. Okay, it's your Fark account, your choice, I got it, but hear me out.

What fun is it going to an internet forum if you don't know who to make fun of? I mean, what's a nuthouse without the nuts? It's just a house, and a house is boring.



In my opinion there are 2 types of trolls. The good ones that get favorited and the lame ones who get ignored. What you propose would be like listening to a bad comedian out of respect for comedy central, why would I do that if I don't find it entertaining? From time to time I turn off ignore to see if they have upped their game, usually they haven't.
 
2012-01-04 04:57:05 PM  

Garet Garrett: Who are these "the courts" everyone keeps talking about?


the federal courts, specifically the 11th Circuit. The citation has been given several times, you don't even need to be a lawyer to interpret it. Now, if someone had pursued the case and driven it to a higher federal court (say the supreme court) and they had issued a counter or more specific ruling, then the 11th circuit's decision wouldn't mean anything. But until that happens, it is the law of the land.
 
2012-01-04 04:57:21 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: BREAKING: Obama To Make Recess Appointments To National Labor Relations Board (new window)


I approve of this. About damn time they are forced to either work together or blow this whole mother up.
 
2012-01-04 04:58:12 PM  

Wooly Bully: cabbyman: I'd tell your mom to shut her face but I'm not finished yet.

What a pity there are no "stupid" and "unfunny" buttons for posts like yours.


I was thinking the same thing about an "AIDS" button for you but instead of just marking your post as "AIDS" it would actually give you AIDS.

Then you'd have AIDS.
 
2012-01-04 04:58:22 PM  

Mnemia: And you think he's refusing to work with the GOP, and intent on unfairly vilifying them?


Uh, yes. This is the guy who excoriated the Senate for passing a two-month stopgap provision on the "payroll tax cut", saying not passing a one-year provision was tantamount to eating children, and then when the House GOP insisted on a one-year extension, excoriated them for not adopting the Senate's provision. This is a hard guy to love. The Dems, on the other hand, are as loyal to him as your average abused housewife.
 
2012-01-04 05:00:57 PM  

Garet Garrett: Mnemia: And you think he's refusing to work with the GOP, and intent on unfairly vilifying them?

Uh, yes. This is the guy who excoriated the Senate for passing a two-month stopgap provision after rejecting the original Democratic one-year provision on the "payroll tax cut", saying not passing a one-year provision was tantamount to eating children, and then when the House GOP insisted on a one-year extension laden with delicious candy for Republicans including stupid, unrelated crap like Keystone XL pipeline, excoriated them for not adopting the Senate's provision. This is a hard guy to love. The Dems, on the other hand, are as loyal to him as your average abused housewife.


Stop lying! Do you ever farking stop lying, even for a goddamned minute?!
 
2012-01-04 05:02:02 PM  

Garet Garrett: Mnemia: And you think he's refusing to work with the GOP, and intent on unfairly vilifying them?

Uh, yes. This is the guy who excoriated the Senate for passing a two-month stopgap provision on the "payroll tax cut", saying not passing a one-year provision was tantamount to eating children, and then when the House GOP insisted on a one-year extension, excoriated them for not adopting the Senate's provision. This is a hard guy to love. The Dems, on the other hand, are as loyal to him as your average abused housewife.


Bear in mind folks, this comment was typed and added with nary a whiff of irony.
 
2012-01-04 05:02:24 PM  

tlchwi02: Garet Garrett: Who are these "the courts" everyone keeps talking about?

the federal courts, specifically the 11th Circuit. The citation has been given several times, you don't even need to be a lawyer to interpret it. Now, if someone had pursued the case and driven it to a higher federal court (say the supreme court) and they had issued a counter or more specific ruling, then the 11th circuit's decision wouldn't mean anything. But until that happens, it is the law of the land.


I was asking for clarification on the "s". And the 11th Circuit does not establish the law of the land. Maybe you do need to be a lawyer to know that. But it's true.
 
2012-01-04 05:02:57 PM  
I'd think Cup_O_Jo was a troll due to the high levels of corporate libertarian crap she spews, but I see it all the time working for the disabled. While the folks born with serious physical disabilities tend to be less oriented towards libertarianism, it's the folks who have late-onset disabilities (like MS, Arthritis, and Fibromyalgia) and the ones with mental disabilities that make them too much of an asshole to work with (Asperger's/Autism, Schizophrenia and slight retardation) who tend towards the libertarian world-- particularly pro-corporate. I have a couple theories on this:

1) Folks born with disabilities grow up knowing that while they might be able to do stuff they want to do, they can always do it better with cooperation. This tends towards a less "every man for himself" mindset.

2) Folks with late onset disabilities grew up being more than capable of the things they wanted to do, worked jobs and did pretty decently. Then they had this setback and now they're on the dole. But they EARNED that dole. They DESERVE it, because up until that point all they got was what they deserved by being awesome. They'd certainly rather be putting in a hard day at work, but they're stuck at home watching TV and chatting on the internet about how bootstrappy as they are before they go out to the mailbox to check for the government check that just got delivered by a government employee. Then again, they might have direct deposit, so they can avoid having to deal with THAT prospect.

3) People with mental problems like libertarianism because it feeds into their skewed perspective on reality. I see this the most in poorly treated Asperger's and Autism, since people without someone around to help broaden their horizons and handle their issue grow up believing that the world around them matters very little save for how they interact with it. Some can view other human beings are merely objects that move around and do things much like how a basketball blows in the wind. Or they see other "neuro-typical" people as another species of animal (thus why you hear a lot of "sheeple" talk from libertarian circles), and that when someone in their life has helped them through another problem they made for themselves, that it was like if you were stranded in the woods and hunted an animal for sustenance. What was the benevolence of others is cast through the lens of bizarre thought processes as bootstrappy behavior.

Again, just an observation I've made. I've since left working in disabilities because the third group drives me up the farking wall. I can deal with someone being an asshole in a wheelchair if they've had a shiat life and no one around for them. But I can't deal with someone whose mind is so farked up that you can't have a reasonable conversation because they think you're livestock that they need to shear if it would benefit them financially.
 
2012-01-04 05:03:47 PM  

tlchwi02: But until that happens, it is the law of the land.


Well, within the 11th Circuit, anyway. Although it is a persuasive precedent for all other circuits (especially since nobody else has ruled on anything similar to the facts of that case before or since).
 
2012-01-04 05:03:52 PM  

fracto73: verbaltoxin: namatad: I love threads like this. Always a couple new people to add to my ignore list.

Aw see, this ignore thing. Okay, it's your Fark account, your choice, I got it, but hear me out.

What fun is it going to an internet forum if you don't know who to make fun of? I mean, what's a nuthouse without the nuts? It's just a house, and a house is boring.


In my opinion there are 2 types of trolls. The good ones that get favorited and the lame ones who get ignored. What you propose would be like listening to a bad comedian out of respect for comedy central, why would I do that if I don't find it entertaining? From time to time I turn off ignore to see if they have upped their game, usually they haven't.


My point is that ignoring people is as easy as just scrolling past their comment. It's more fun to read the responses to trolls anyway. It's even more fun just to make fun of them. These are people coming to a website to either screw with people intentionally (Mike Lowell) or because they are that stupid (Everyone else). For me the comedy of Fark is what comes when the other Farkers pounce on these guys.
 
2012-01-04 05:03:55 PM  
I don't have a GED in law or anything, but this sounds pretty clear:

One question a judge could need to answer is whether Cordray will actually be able to assume those powers since he has been recess-appointed. The text of the Dodd-Frank law states that those powers will not take effect until the CFPB director "is confirmed by the Senate."
 
2012-01-04 05:05:11 PM  

Garet Garrett: tlchwi02: Garet Garrett: Who are these "the courts" everyone keeps talking about?

the federal courts, specifically the 11th Circuit. The citation has been given several times, you don't even need to be a lawyer to interpret it. Now, if someone had pursued the case and driven it to a higher federal court (say the supreme court) and they had issued a counter or more specific ruling, then the 11th circuit's decision wouldn't mean anything. But until that happens, it is the law of the land.

I was asking for clarification on the "s". And the 11th Circuit does not establish the law of the land. Maybe you do need to be a lawyer to know that. But it's true.


You've already acknowledge the 11th's ruling was valid, so just because a different Farker is coming at you doesn't mean you get to pretend you didn't say things you already said.

Seriously man, are you 12?
 
2012-01-04 05:06:10 PM  

KiltedBastich: Which is an extraconstitutional action taken to block the use of the President's Constitutional powers


How is it an extraconstitutional action? The constitution grants the congress to set rules of their meetings. Thus the constitution grants this allows congress to do this.
 
2012-01-04 05:06:14 PM  

KiltedBastich: Cup_O_Jo: UM *looks at you sideways-- way to jump the shark there. I bet you believe in OWS also. I can't wait till this goes Government stupid and you all complain.

Uh huh. Since that's not actually an argument, but rather a hyperbolic red herring distraction attempt, what's your point? You're still colossally wrong about the imbalance of power in the relationship between the banks and the average person, and your inability to recognize this is still evidence of monumental ignorance and personal delusion.

Here's a big hint for you: reading the fine print doesn't matter if you don't have the training to undestand the full ramifications and implications of that fine print, and the banks rely on that, because currently they make their own rules, and get to change them at whim.

Cup_O_Jo: UH No hun--Personal Responsibility is the exact opposite of the definition for a sociopath. A sociopath plays victim and is detached from their own personal responsibility. I am completely for humanity and owning yourself. Not blaming others for your own farkups. Read the fine print quit whining.

No, the definition of a sociopath is a lack of empathy, and a willingness to twist the rules to their own favor and disregard the rules when they think they can get away with it.

"Fark you, I got mine" and "Sucks to be you, should have read the fine print" demonstrate an enormous lack of empathy, and a near-total lack of comprehension of the actual power that large financial institutions have in the economic and political system of the USA.


From the dictionary "is unable to experience guilt or to learn from past behaviors, is impervious to punishment, and tends to rationalize his or her behavior or to blame it on others." Likes to play victim. That is what that says. Right there. Medical dictionary. Advocating for personal responsibility is in no way sociopathic. Advocating for personal responsibility is not cold or callous. I never said sucks to be you.. hat shiat happened. We moved ON--that was over a year ago with the banks. WE DO NOT NEED A NEW GUY. We don't need some guy to oversee some made up position. Basically today was the parade of "I am spending your tax dollars to employ these people to do this" Honestly there does not need to be people to do those things. IT IS PART OF HIS JOB. With the new government regulations there is no need for a guy. Other than to fake you out that you are protected from some FINE PRINT. Which is still going to be there. You are still going to have to read it. Or you will be farked. Hiring this man does not make the fine print go away. If anything it will just make shiat more complicated and the fine print less comprehensive. Are you even familiar with how the government writes things? Have you ever done your taxes? This man is not going to make shiat easier. You will still have to have personal responsibility. That is not sociopathic. That is a fact.
 
2012-01-04 05:07:35 PM  

RexTalionis: Well, within the 11th Circuit, anyway. Although it is a persuasive precedent for all other circuits (especially since nobody else has ruled on anything similar to the facts of that case before or since).


yes, i should say its the accepted interpretation of the constitution on congressional recess unless and until it is challenged by another ruling, overturned by another higher court or superceded by a specific law that is not itself challenged.

but law of the land has a ring to it!
 
2012-01-04 05:08:55 PM  

Cat Food Sandwiches: I don't have a GED in law or anything, but this sounds pretty clear:

One question a judge could need to answer is whether Cordray will actually be able to assume those powers since he has been recess-appointed. The text of the Dodd-Frank law states that those powers will not take effect until the CFPB director "is confirmed by the Senate."


Think ahead a little. Recess appointments still have to go up for confirmation or the term ends when Congress enters a recess. Two things are being argued here: what counts as recess when Congress keeps having pro forma sessions to avoid recess, and what can Cordray actually do now that he's been nominated.

Now the Republicans have some options here. They could sue and push this to a federal court, because interpreting the Constitution are what courts are for, and have this whole confirmation battle play out in public. Of course this means they'll have to explain why they've been pushing back Cordray's nomination for six months and why they hate a government agency that gets funding via the Fed and is designed to ensure the banks can't screw people quite as hard anymore. That sure is a tough position.

The other option is already here on display: the Republicans can b*tch, moan and cry, and go back to the Obstruction Strategy board.

You wanna know what the Vegas odds are?
 
2012-01-04 05:12:39 PM  

ColdFusion: I'd think Cup_O_Jo was a troll due to the high levels of corporate libertarian crap she spews, but I see it all the time working for the disabled. While the folks born with serious physical disabilities tend to be less oriented towards libertarianism, it's the folks who have late-onset disabilities (like MS, Arthritis, and Fibromyalgia) and the ones with mental disabilities that make them too much of an asshole to work with (Asperger's/Autism, Schizophrenia and slight retardation) who tend towards the libertarian world-- particularly pro-corporate. I have a couple theories on this:

1) Folks born with disabilities grow up knowing that while they might be able to do stuff they want to do, they can always do it better with cooperation. This tends towards a less "every man for himself" mindset.

2) Folks with late onset disabilities grew up being more than capable of the things they wanted to do, worked jobs and did pretty decently. Then they had this setback and now they're on the dole. But they EARNED that dole. They DESERVE it, because up until that point all they got was what they deserved by being awesome. They'd certainly rather be putting in a hard day at work, but they're stuck at home watching TV and chatting on the internet about how bootstrappy as they are before they go out to the mailbox to check for the government check that just got delivered by a government employee. Then again, they might have direct deposit, so they can avoid having to deal with THAT prospect.

3) People with mental problems like libertarianism because it feeds into their skewed perspective on reality. I see this the most in poorly treated Asperger's and Autism, since people without someone around to help broaden their horizons and handle their issue grow up believing that the world around them matters very little save for how they interact with it. Some can view other human beings are merely objects that move around and do things much like how a basketball blows in the w ...


Uh I don't deserve shiat. I am grateful that I began working at 14 so that I could receive disability. Which is not the dole. Because I did pay into it along with my whole family that works. Also not a libertarian,republican,or democrat. Honestly I just want someone to do their job. Quit putting on shows to get votes. I am completely fed up with the system. WHY? Because I am in the system. I know how it works. Do I want to be in the system? Do I love it? Do I revel in it? NO not at all. I seriously want a cure for MS and want out. As I sit and watch the world around me--all I see is we have lost sight of our own personal responsibility. People lack it,shy away from it,and treat it like it is a disease. In the end you and your choices are all that you have. That is why I rant.
 
2012-01-04 05:15:59 PM  

LordJiro: MilesTeg: No biggie. The majority of voters alleviated their racial guilt when they elected him in his 1st term. They will not vote for him again. The only votes he will get will be hard core liberal democrats and minorities. He and his cronies will be thrown out office shortly and the Fark lib butt hurt will be epic.

PfffHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Oh, this is gold. People, vote this comment up; it's the funniest goddamn thing I've read in weeks. Even funnier if he's serious.


dude nailed it. got my smartvote.
 
2012-01-04 05:16:33 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Garet Garrett: Mnemia: And you think he's refusing to work with the GOP, and intent on unfairly vilifying them?

Uh, yes. This is the guy who excoriated the Senate for passing a two-month stopgap provision after rejecting the original Democratic one-year provision on the "payroll tax cut", saying not passing a one-year provision was tantamount to eating children, and then when the House GOP insisted on a one-year extension laden with delicious candy for Republicans including stupid, unrelated crap like Keystone XL pipeline, excoriated them for not adopting the Senate's provision. This is a hard guy to love. The Dems, on the other hand, are as loyal to him as your average abused housewife.

Stop lying! Do you ever farking stop lying, even for a goddamned minute?!


Oh, no! The GOP wanted to, but didn't, insist that the administration REVIEW a potential infrastructure project! Those bastards! You're right, they deserve his derision.

Let's review. The senate passes a bill, sends it to the house. The house wants to mark it up and send it to conference, but Majority Leader Reid says they've gone home for the holidays, there will be no negotiations, the bill is take-it-or-leave-kit. Obama says he'll veto it if it has Keystone review in it. The House GOP capitulates, and passes the bill as passed in the Senate.

Clearly, the House GOP is the obstructionist wing of government. How dare they insist that they participate in the governmental process, rather than rubber stamping the President's desires, as is their role.
 
2012-01-04 05:17:06 PM  

ColdFusion: But they EARNED that dole. They DESERVE it


Just want you to know, I clicked that stupid new "smart" button for the first time for that post. Interesting observations.
 
2012-01-04 05:19:45 PM  

Garet Garrett: Oh, no! The GOP wanted to, but didn't, insist that the administration REVIEW a potential infrastructure project! Those bastards! You're right, they deserve his derision.

Let's review. The senate passes a bill, sends it to the house. The house wants to mark it up and send it to conference, but Majority Leader Reid says they've gone home for the holidays, there will be no negotiations, the bill is take-it-or-leave-kit. Obama says he'll veto it if it has Keystone review in it. The House GOP capitulates, and passes the bill as passed in the Senate.

Clearly, the House GOP is the obstructionist wing of government. How dare they insist that they participate in the governmental process, rather than rubber stamping the President's desires, as is their role.


The Senate bill had the Keystone review language in it. The Senate capitulated, not the House.

Also, the Keystone language is an accelerated decision - the President must make a decision in 60 days (if I recall), bypassing the normal review period.
 
2012-01-04 05:20:22 PM  

verbaltoxin: You've already acknowledge the 11th's ruling was valid, so just because a different Farker is coming at you doesn't mean you get to pretend you didn't say things you already said.


Huh? Did I say it wasn't valid? An 11th Circuit decision is, generally, binding precedent on issues of federal law in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. It's not binding outside that region. And thus not "the law of the land."
 
2012-01-04 05:21:19 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Scott Brown backs Obama naming Cordray: "I would have strongly preferred ..normal confirmation process [but] system is completely broken." - Michael McAuliff (@mmcauliff) January 4, 2012 if the Senate had allowed the first person to be appointed, because then I would have a shot in hell of keeping my seat.




FIFY
 
2012-01-04 05:21:28 PM  

Cup_O_Jo: Which is not the dole. Because I did pay


You're kind shooting yourself in the foot there.
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, but I'm sure you earned every dollar and deserve every cent of welfare the benefits you receive from the government.
 
2012-01-04 05:23:35 PM  

Garet Garrett: Congress gets to decide when Congress is in recess, or when it's in session. The President doesn't get to second-guess them. It's a core separation of powers principle.


BZZZZZZt! WRONG!


"[The President] may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper;"

US Constitution, Article II, Section 3.

I just wish he'd rubbed their noses in it. Something like "Noting that the House is in recess, and the Senate cannot decide whether they are in a real session or not, I use my powers from Article II Section 3 to adjourn them both. And BTW, appoint all these people...."
 
2012-01-04 05:23:35 PM  

Funk Brothers: Jake Havechek: Funk Brothers: I don't think Obama would enjoy getting impeached in an election year.

This is ridiculous and in violation of the Constitution. He goes ahead appointing a person without approval from Congress.

On August 1, 2005, Bush officially made a recess appointment of [John] Bolton, installing him as Permanent US Representative to the UN. A recess appointment lasts until the next session of Congress ends or until the individual is renominated and confirmed by the Senate.

Well at least Bush didn't have a tend with a Democratic majority during that time. Still this does not matter. This is illegal.


You do realize that Bush made recess appointments in 2007 despite a Dem majority, right?

Recess appts. made by Bush between 2001-2008 (new window)
 
2012-01-04 05:24:06 PM  
GOP was completely within it's rights obstructing all it wanted.

That's how the shiat works, sometimes not at all. I say good.

Anyone who believes another oversight agency will improve things is by definition insane.


/After twenty-eight months in political limbo and a protracted six-month battle using the filibuster, Estrada withdrew his name from further consideration on September 4, 2003.
 
2012-01-04 05:28:19 PM  
In case anyone is curious, John Elwood at Volokh posted his thoughts as to why this move is constitutional, in particular focusing on how allowing pro forma sessions to break up a recess destroys the separation of powers that the Founding Fathers wanted.
 
2012-01-04 05:30:58 PM  

Cup_O_Jo: Why does this have a hero tag? And why are people joyous about this. Government regulations on how you shop. YEAY. I LIKE GOVERNMENT IN EVERYTHING. WTF? Looks around--I am in America right?


Of course you are still in America. If you ever get confused about this in the future, just take a look at where the government checks that sustain your entire existence are coming from.

You are welcome to leave and stop living off the American taxpayer at any time.
 
2012-01-04 05:34:22 PM  

L82DPRT: GOP was completely within it's rights obstructing all it wanted.

That's how the shiat works, sometimes not at all. I say good.

Anyone who believes another oversight agency will improve things is by definition insane.


/After twenty-eight months in political limbo and a protracted six-month battle using the filibuster, Estrada withdrew his name from further consideration on September 4, 2003.


As I understand it, numerous agencies exist to exercise oversight and regulation of our economy, but those agencies generally get neutered pretty quick by Congress' appropriation powers. Those agencies that actually appear to be working find their budgets cut to bare-bones levels and their efficiency drops to dismal levels as a result.

The CFPA, however, is not subject to Congress' appropriation powers. Their budget comes from the Federal Reserve, meaning that they're beholden to Congress and they need not fear a slashed budget for doing their jobs correctly.

Meaning, I have hope for this agency.
 
2012-01-04 05:35:19 PM  

Magorn: Reverend J: Quasar: Sweet. The head of a mostly toothless agency will really turn things around for America.

Description of teh CFBU

/Google is your friend

Without getting too specific, let's just say I was nearby when this agency was being created. The truly awesome thing about it, the resons the Repoublicans have been so desperate to block it is because of the way its fudning clause is constructed (courtesy of Mr. Frank, I suspect). Congress doesn't have any power to increase or decrease it's budget through the normal appropriations process. Instead it gets its money from an uatomatic draw on the profits of the Federal Reserve (yes it makes a profit, a very healthy one).

Meaning that the one threat Congress usually has to reign in an agency it doesn't like, the threat to slash its budget, won't work here. Thus the agency will be able to d its job and not have to give damn what Congressmen (or thier high-priced campaign contributors) think of it.


That brings a smile to my face, nice to see the prez stepping up and show he can still throw it down.
 
2012-01-04 05:36:20 PM  

Saiga410: How is it an extraconstitutional action? The constitution grants the congress to set rules of their meetings. Thus the constitution grants this allows congress to do this.


Because:

1) The pro-forma sessions are not defined in the constitution, but are a manipulation of congress' rules specifically with the intent of blocking the use of an actual enumerated constitutional power. It certainly is not what the Founders intended or expected, given that they made a specific provision that Congress meet at least once a year.

2) This is being done as a means not just to block a particular candidate, but as a means to hamstring an entire agency mandated by a previous act of Congress by technical means because they lack the means to repeal it directly.

In short, they are deliberately seeking, as a minority party of the Senate, to block both an act of Congress that operates according to the rules directly defined in the Constitution and the Constitutional authority of the President, using rules that are not defined in the Constitution, and in fact require some convoluted manipulations to justify even using the rules of their own body.

Both of those actions individually are an intent to subvert the spirit and letter of the Constitution, hence extraconstitutional, that is, not acting according to the spirit or letter of the Constitution. Together they are egregiously so.

Cup_O_Jo: From the dictionary "is unable to experience guilt or to learn from past behaviors, is impervious to punishment, and tends to rationalize his or her behavior or to blame it on others." Likes to play victim. That is what that says. Right there. Medical dictionary. Advocating for personal responsibility is in no way sociopathic. Advocating for personal responsibility is not cold or callous. I never said sucks to be you.. hat shiat happened. We moved ON--that was over a year ago with the banks. WE DO NOT NEED A NEW GUY. We don't need some guy to oversee some made up position. Basically today was the parade of "I am spending your tax dollars to employ these people to do this" Honestly there does not need to be people to do those things. IT IS PART OF HIS JOB. With the new government regulations there is no need for a guy. Other than to fake you out that you are protected from some FINE PRINT. Which is still going to be there. You are still going to have to read it. Or you will be farked. Hiring this man does not make the fine print go away. If anything it will just make shiat more complicated and the fine print less comprehensive. Are you even familiar with how the government writes things? Have you ever done your taxes? This man is not going to make shiat easier. You will still have to have personal responsibility. That is not sociopathic. That is a fact.


You know how I know you don't know what you are talking about? Because if you were consulting the actual definitive medical dictionaries, the DSM-IV and the ICD-10, you'd know that current usage is not sociopathy, but antisocial personality disorder.

The one important thing in this case in both of the lists of criteria is the disregard for others and lack of empathy - which you are demonstrating, along with a shallow and superficial understanding of the ramifications of the massive power imbalance between the average consumer and the banks.

Do you not get that the point of regulating the banks is not to get rid of the fine print, but to make the fine print comprehensible, and to make it fair? Is it really so hard for you to grasp that banks can and will put in fine print with consequences that will screw over their clients in return for more profits, knowing that the clients won't understand? Is it really so hard for you to understand that once the banks have your money, they can and will and have engaged in risky and outright fraudulent practices in the name of profit, the consequence of which they are protected from at public expense (a.k.a. the taxes YOU pay) while your investments as an average consumer experience high risk and volatility as a result?

Do you really not get that actually lessening or removing the power imbalance between average consumers and the banks and other powerful and wealthy corporate agents is a good thing? Do you really not get that your "Sucks to be you, take responsibility and read the fine print" attitude is blaming the victim and indicative of a complete lack of empathy?

Are you REALLY that ignorant? That oblivious? That lost to basic human fellow-feeling? Would you have preferred people tell you to suck it up and deal when you were injured and in need of help, whether that injury was physical, social, psychological or financial? Because that is exactly what you are now saying to others - and thus add hypocrisy to the myriad ways you are wrong.
 
2012-01-04 05:40:28 PM  

qorkfiend: Parliamentary tactics are valid for use in overcoming parliamentary tactics.


THIS.
 
2012-01-04 05:41:45 PM  

Infernalist: L82DPRT: GOP was completely within it's rights obstructing all it wanted.

That's how the shiat works, sometimes not at all. I say good.

Anyone who believes another oversight agency will improve things is by definition insane.


/After twenty-eight months in political limbo and a protracted six-month battle using the filibuster, Estrada withdrew his name from further consideration on September 4, 2003.

As I understand it, numerous agencies exist to exercise oversight and regulation of our economy, but those agencies generally get neutered pretty quick by Congress' appropriation powers. Those agencies that actually appear to be working find their budgets cut to bare-bones levels and their efficiency drops to dismal levels as a result.

The CFPA, however, is not subject to Congress' appropriation powers. Their budget comes from the Federal Reserve, meaning that they're NOT beholden to Congress and they need not fear a slashed budget for doing their jobs correctly.

Meaning, I have hope for this agency.


FTFM
 
2012-01-04 05:44:22 PM  

Infernalist: NOT beholden to Congress


Therein lies Congress' problem, no?
 
2012-01-04 05:44:23 PM  

Cup_O_Jo: Uh I don't deserve shiat. I am grateful that I began working at 14 so that I could receive disability. Which is not the dole. Because I did pay into it along with my whole family that works. Also not a libertarian,republican,or democrat. Honestly I just want someone to do their job. Quit putting on shows to get votes. I am completely fed up with the system. WHY? Because I am in the system. I know how it works. Do I want to be in the system? Do I love it? Do I revel in it? NO not at all. I seriously want a cure for MS and want out. As I sit and watch the world around me--all I see is we have lost sight of our own personal responsibility. People lack it,shy away from it,and treat it like it is a disease. In the end you and your choices are all that you have. That is why I rant.


There's no way that your contributions equalled the amount you are drawing from disability, not if it's enough for you to survive on. Do the math, I dare you. Do you have enough personal investments to support yourself without recourse to government aid? No? Then you are not personally responsible for your own welfare and situation. You are dependent on the largesse of others.

Oh, but you didn't know you would get MS? Oh well, too bad, you should have considered the possibility of a long-term crippling illness, I mean, I am sure you knew it was possible, right? You knew MS and other long term progressive illnesses existed before you contracted MS, right? You should have been more responsible and taken that into account in your life plans before it happened. You should be ashamed of your lack of foresight and attention to those important details.

THIS is why I say you have little or no empathy. You blame others for things they have no control over, do not understand, and did not plan for, yet expect to be helped with and forgiven for the things you have no control over, do not understand, and did not plan for. Your inability to understand this fundamental similarity makes you both willfully ignorant and enormously hypocritical.
 
2012-01-04 05:45:32 PM  

Mnemia: Glad to see that Obama is finally learning how to play hardball effectively with the assholes in the GOP. You live by the sword, you die by the sword. Maybe next time they'll think about the future consequences of abusing the process in order to get what you want in defiance of the Constitution and the will of the voters. Part of what is so dangerous about throwing out the rules is that it compels your opponents to likewise "bend" them in order to accomplish their goals if they aren't willing to just bend over and take it. So it's better for the country to actually have respect for the institutions and process.

It's sad for America that Obama has had to take this step in order to accomplish his actual constitutionally mandated role of executing the laws passed by Congress, but the anger should fall on the assholes who forced him to do it.


Hmm, what you seem to be ignoring is this has been normal practise for at least 3 decades, and in most cases the media wouldn't even bother reporting on it. In fact Obama hasn't used this "trick" as much as his more recent predecessors, so that he is doing it isn't very notable or indicative of anything in particular.
 
2012-01-04 05:48:08 PM  

KiltedBastich: You know how I know you don't know what you are talking about? Because if you were consulting the actual definitive medical dictionaries, the DSM-IV and the ICD-10, you'd know that current usage is not sociopathy, but antisocial personality disorder.

The one important thing in this case in both of the lists of criteria is the disregard for others and lack of empathy - which you are demonstrating, along with a shallow and superficial understanding of the ramifications of the massive power imbalance between the average consumer and the banks.


By the multi-limbed Bodhi tree of St. Josephat, are we really going to start internet diagnosing people with mental disorders, now?
 
2012-01-04 05:51:56 PM  

Cat Food Sandwiches: It's payback time:

Labor unions, a bedrock of Democratic political support in this election year, had been pushing the White House to fill the seats.

"We commend the president for exercising his constitutional authority to ensure that crucially important agencies protecting workers' rights and consumers are not shut down by Republican obstructionism," said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka.


Who needs those jobs in South Carolina anyway!
 
2012-01-04 05:53:02 PM  

Cup_O_Jo: Uh I don't deserve shiat. I am grateful that I began working at 14 so that I could receive disability. Which is not the dole. Because I did pay into it


What you paid into it likely did not even cover the first year you were on disability. If you want we can do the math on this.

Also above you stated that you are not on welfare. Disability payments are welfare. They are just about the very definition of welfare. What do you think welfare is? Do you think there is some actual singular program called "Welfare"?
 
2012-01-04 06:03:24 PM  

xria:
Hmm, what you seem to be ignoring is this has been normal practise for at least 3 decades, and in most cases the media wouldn't even bother reporting on it. In fact Obama hasn't used this "trick" as much as his more recent predecessors, so that he is doing it isn't very notable or indicative of anything in particular.


Well, I agree that there is nothing particularly remarkable about a recess appointment, by itself. What is notable in this case is the degree to which Republicans have gone this time in order to prevent such appointments, with the pro forma sessions and unprecedented abuse of the filibuster (they are using it in this case not because they have a particular problem with the nominee, but because they don't want the agency he's being appointed to lead to exist. They lost the legislative fight, and the electoral fight, and so they're trying to hamper the executive branch's ability to do the job it's supposed to do, from the minority.) If they go even further and try to sue to stop the appointment, their contempt for the process will be even more profound.
 
2012-01-04 06:03:37 PM  

KiltedBastich: Cup_O_Jo: Uh I don't deserve shiat. I am grateful that I began working at 14 so that I could receive disability. Which is not the dole. Because I did pay into it along with my whole family that works. Also not a libertarian,republican,or democrat. Honestly I just want someone to do their job. Quit putting on shows to get votes. I am completely fed up with the system. WHY? Because I am in the system. I know how it works. Do I want to be in the system? Do I love it? Do I revel in it? NO not at all. I seriously want a cure for MS and want out. As I sit and watch the world around me--all I see is we have lost sight of our own personal responsibility. People lack it,shy away from it,and treat it like it is a disease. In the end you and your choices are all that you have. That is why I rant.

There's no way that your contributions equalled the amount you are drawing from disability, not if it's enough for you to survive on. Do the math, I dare you. Do you have enough personal investments to support yourself without recourse to government aid? No? Then you are not personally responsible for your own welfare and situation. You are dependent on the largesse of others.

Oh, but you didn't know you would get MS? Oh well, too bad, you should have considered the possibility of a long-term crippling illness, I mean, I am sure you knew it was possible, right? You knew MS and other long term progressive illnesses existed before you contracted MS, right? You should have been more responsible and taken that into account in your life plans before it happened. You should be ashamed of your lack of foresight and attention to those important details.

THIS is why I say you have little or no empathy. You blame others for things they have no control over, do not understand, and did not plan for, yet expect to be helped with and forgiven for the things you have no control over, do not understand, and did not plan for. Your inability to understand this fundamental similarity makes you both w ...


WOW talk about insane projection. Did you not read a single thing I said. -----WTF does getting MS have to do with personal responsibility? Let me tell you--I don't blame anyone else for my MS. I don't even blame God. I don't blame myself. Which is why I am full of empathy and understanding. Your personal attack is proof I gave you butt hurt. Why? Because the last thing I said was explain why we need a guy to pretend to read the fine print for you. I also told you the fine print was not going to go away and now that there is a newly appointed guy the fine print will probably be harder to understand. Meaning we as people will still have to take personal responsibility for our own financial actions. YOUR counter to that is to attack me personally. I know personal responsibility sucks doesn't it? Wasting tax dollars to pay someone to pretend to protect you from the fine print is asinine. That is what this thread is about. You keep trying to go all OWS on me because I pointed out that one will still have to have personal responsibility. Growing up freaks you out doesn't it.
 
2012-01-04 06:03:43 PM  

KiltedBastich: I alone am best: That is the reason for the pro forma sessions. To avoid the intrasession recess.

Which is an extraconstitutional action taken to block the use of the President's Constitutional powers and hamstring an agency they don't like created by an earlier act of congress that they can't repeal, and so are trying to undermine by technical means.

And you support that entire pile of stinking cow manure, but show high dudgeon when Obama does something about it.

Want to know how I know you are an irrational knee-jerk partisan?


Pot meet kettle.
 
2012-01-04 06:04:11 PM  

Cup_O_Jo: Uh I don't deserve shiat. I am grateful that I began working at 14 so that I could receive disability. Which is not the dole. Because I did pay into it along with my whole family that works. Also not a libertarian,republican,or democrat. Honestly I just want someone to do their job. Quit putting on shows to get votes. I am completely fed up with the system. WHY? Because I am in the system. I know how it works. Do I want to be in the system? Do I love it? Do I revel in it? NO not at all. I seriously want a cure for MS and want out. As I sit and watch the world around me--all I see is we have lost sight of our own personal responsibility. People lack it,shy away from it,and treat it like it is a disease. In the end you and your choices are all that you have. That is why I rant.


I began working at 15, and I'm grateful about that too, even if it had a negative impact on my high school grades. Since you paid into it, you deserve it, but what about folks with birth defects that make it hard for them to work, too? Should they be taken off disability since they didn't pay into it?

"not a libertarian"? Quacks like a duck, walks like a duck. You might not formally align yourself with that philosophy, but a lot of your posts indicate a strongly libertarian leaning ideology. That's small-"l" libertarian, as in the ideas but not the party.

43% of people with MS continue working for 12 years after the diagnosis, which typically comes well after symptoms arrive. That's full-time work. Many many more have part-time jobs, which reduce their reliance on government benefits. Do you exercise regularly, or post on Fark all day? Both MS and my own condition (Psoriatic Arthritis) make it hard to exercise, yes, but consistent exercise over time has been known to relieve symptoms and in some cases reverse them, again in both problems. There's a mental attitude that is also involved, which just guessing from how you word your post, you don't have correctly. It sounds like you've given up and you're just waiting for Big Pharma to sweep in with a cure. You can't win the war, but you CAN give your disease a coont-punt from time to time and get back a little ground.

Of course, I could be totally wrong, and you're doing everything in your life to make it hard for MS to destroy you. I don't know. But even when I got diagnosed with psoriatic arthritis and was pretty much told I'd die before 25, I didn't go on disability. I'm not saying it to brag, but to point this out to you: Even though I'm not on it, and I continue to work despite the pain (I have adjusted my career choices to accomodate), I wouldn't take a single person's disability payments away. I'm not going to take what little support some people have to survive and find some way to be productive.

And as for "In the end you and your choices are all that you have", if there's one thing I've learned on this planet in my relatively short time its that the choices people make are only as good as the options they have available to you. If the "free market" ruled all, you wouldn't have an income stream from your disability payments. That program wouldn't exist. A company might've offered it, but it would cost an arm and a leg to get, do everything in its power to deny your claim, and then lowball you on your payout. If that were the case, and you are completely unemployable, what would your options be then?
 
2012-01-04 06:05:33 PM  
Of course, I could be totally wrong, and you're doing everything in your life to make it hard for MS to destroy you. I don't know. But even when I got diagnosed with psoriatic arthritis and was pretty much told I'd die before 2545,

FTFM.
 
Displayed 50 of 516 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report