Re: A few guys would not be like Bush or Obama

Oculus Spirit [97838]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 64951

Joined: 7/13/02

I find it interesting when presidential candidates are asked

Aug 7, 2015, 9:20 AM

about spending, budgets, , or anything else that is the purview of Congress. Someone made a comment about Social Security, and how they would change it. No president is going to change social security. And then you have those talking about cutting spending. Beyond the executive branch enforcement of Congressional laws, the President has no leeway in cutting spending. They can cut the military, cut executive departments, but none can touch the entitlements, which are what is really killing us. Then they go on to talk about taxes. Cut this, fair tax, consumption tax, whatever. It's all talk.

The question that should have been posed is: "How are YOU going to CONVINCE the 434 guys on Capitol Hill to cut taxes, create a fair tax, consumption tax...?"etc. How are you going to convince them to cut social security benefits? How are you going to LEAD.

The civics lesson lost to everyone, consistently for decades, is that the President can veto entire laws. He can control the executive branch. That's it. He can not pass laws, only regulations enabled by prior laws meekly passed by Congress. Someone kept talking last night about how the last time the budget was balanced (back in the 90's when Clinton was in office) they somehow were responsible for that. Well, fact is the balanced budget of the Clinton years was, more than anything else, due to his unique enjoyment, for a few years, of the line item veto. That allowed Clinton to not face the problem faced by every President before and since. Say Congress passes the Feed All The Children And Love Everyone Law (FATCALEL). In it all children are fed, clothed, educated, and get health care. Beautiful law. No brainer. In it, though, are amendments to fund a ballistic missile program, expand medicaid, and fund a nation-wide arts program for chimpanzees in zoos. Well, as a President, you can feed all the children, and then waste a few billion on the chimpanzee art program, and pass the law, or veto the entire thing. You are immediately branded as hating children and wanting them to starve.

With the line item veto, Clinton could strike the chimpanzee art program, the medicare expansion, and the missile program and keep the part of the law feeding all the children. In other words, you could kill the pork. Clinton struck out billions from laws with the line item veto, balancing the budget, and creating a surplus. The Supreme Court struck down the line item veto just before Clinton left office, and the pork, deficits, etc. returned in full force. Other than Clinton, no President in my lifetime has had the ability to cut Congressional spending.

So a lot of this debate was meaningless, and few understand that. Other than pegging an ideological stance for candidates, the debate is of little use. You can get the most fiscally conservative candidate, and if he can't convince Congress to do what he says, he's ineffective in cutting spending. Bush tried it with Social Security....remember....a decade ago? It didn't work because he was a poor leader. He made his case, which will be made again and again until SS goes broke. He made it to the American people and to Congress. The media and Congress scoffed at him and nothing happened.

They key for these guys last night is if they can convince the American people they are right about their issue. Explain it to the American people. Hope they absorb it. Because that's how a President controls Congress. He goes right around Congress, straight to the people, he explains the issue and the reasons for his position, SELLS IT to the PEOPLE, and then Congress starts sweating about their reelection and capitulate. Obama did this with Obamacare. He told us we could keep our plans, keep our doctors, costs would go down, etc. He lied. Then he lied to Congress that Obamacare would not include abortion funding to get the last few democrat stragglers to go along with him. Obama has been EXTREMELY effective in leading Congress. To our detriment.

I don't particularly like Trump, but he may be the best choice for changing Congress. He will not be cowed by the media, as Bush was. The media has given Obama a free pass all these years, despite the lies and abuses of power. The media will be against any republican elected. That's just a fact. And I think that's Trump's biggest appeal. He will give it right back to them, unlike Bush. That will make him a more effective leader. Reagan is much like Trump, just with 100 times more class and intelligence. But the media attacked him mercilessly and he fought back....with class, but he fought back. That fight is now a big part of the equation, and Trumps reeling in the votes with his fight. If you polled every republican right now and simply asked who can combat the media bias the best of all the candidates, you would get Trump winning at 90+%.

Trump isn't leading on the "issues". He's leading on leadership, something the GOP has lacked for decades and something they sorely need in a candidate to ultimately succeed in changing minds, and Congress. He is such a breath of fresh air in GOP politics that the issues matter little to his supporters. He may be half as conservative as Bush was, but if he can lead, he can enact more conservative results than all the Presidents since Reagan combined.

The key to this GOP primary is leadership more than the issues. We've heard the issues for decades with zero results. Trump was the shallowest intellect on that stage last night by a mile. He was also the best potential leader by a mile.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

what she did to HP?

From working with HP servers, support and PC's actively during that time, she ruined that company. They've never been right since then. I worked with several larger companies that dumped them completely due to quality and support issues. All they can win by now is when they bid lower than anyone else.

Lulz..from Wiki:

Fiorina presented herself as a realist regarding the effects of globalization. She was a strong proponent, along with other technology executives, of the expansion of the H-1B visa program.[45][46][47][48] Fiorina responded against protectionism in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, writing that while "America is the most innovative country," it would not remain so if the country were to "run away from the reality of the global economy."[49] Fiorina said to Congress in 2004: "There is no job that is America's God-given right anymore. We have to compete for jobs as a nation."[46] While Fiorina argued that the only way to "protect U.S. high-tech jobs over the long haul was to become more competitive [in the United States]," her comments prompted "strong reactions" from some technology workers who argued that lower wages outside the United States encouraged the offshoring of American jobs.[50] In the US, 30,000 HP employees were laid off during Fiorina's tenure.[6][51] In 2004, HP fell dramatically short of its predicted third-quarter earnings, and Fiorina fired three executives during a 5 AM telephone call.[34]

Fiorina frequently clashed with HP's board of directors,[34][40] and she faced backlash among HP employees and the tech community for her leading role in the demise of HP's egalitarian "The HP Way" work culture and guiding philosophy,[34][40][52] which she felt hindered innovation.[34][53] Because of changes to HP's culture, and requests for voluntary pay cuts to prevent layoffs (subsequently followed by the largest layoffs in HP's history), employee satisfaction surveys at HP—previously among the highest in America—revealed "widespread unhappiness" and distrust,[34][54] and Fiorina was sometimes booed at company meetings and attacked on HP's electronic bulletin board.[34]

During Fiorina's time as CEO, HP's revenue doubled due to mergers with Compaq and other companies,[55][56] and the rate of patent filings increased.[56] However, the company reportedly underperformed by a number of metrics: there were no gains in HP's net income despite a 70% gain in net income of the S&P 500 over this period;[55] the company's debt rose from ~4.25 billion USD to ~6.75 billion USD;[55] and stock price fell by 50%, exceeding declines in the S&P 500 Information Technology Sector index and the NASDAQ.[55][57] In contrast, stock prices for IBM and Dell fell 27.5% and 3% respectively, during this time period.

Very impressed with Christie and Bush so far

Barf

They're not my favorites, they've just impressed

Gotcha

I say they've impressed because they haven't been about the sound bites

It's easy to spout of numbers and say things you would do

A few guys would not be like Bush or Obama

I find it interesting when presidential candidates are asked

Cruz is not eligible to be POTUS.***

He wasn't born in Kenya???***

Kenada.

Any one of those would be preferable to what the Dems

We are fully capable of doing both.

Didn't watch the first debate, but did anyone ask Carly

I'd bet her salary and stock options didn't....***

Bush came off better than I expected him too.

Agree on Trump. I see him flaming out. There are

I think Kasich/Carson would be the Pubs best ticket...***

Kasich didn't have a flag pin.***

I don't think Ohio is the hub of 'couture'... ;~)***

TigerBoard POTD