No, the problem is that Obama is deciding on his own which provisions of which laws to enforce, regardless of whether or not he considers those laws constitutional.
Actually, the case can be made that the President has a duty NOT to enforce laws which he believes to be unconstitutional (the Constitution says that certain things are not subject to being enacted into law. It nowhere says who is supposed to decide what is and is not constitutional. The implication being that each and every government official is supposed to reject any laws which violate the constitution). Under that interpretation, Obama's decision to not enforce DOMA was defensible. However, his decision to grant waivers to the No Child Left Behind Act, his decision to delay the employer mandate under the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act, and several others (including this one) are not.
So, you are perfectly happy that the rules are whatever the people in charge say they are today...and subject to change when that suits the interests of those in charge. I much prefer a nation of laws, where the rules are the same for everyone and change only when a process is followed that most people agree upon and that we can see the change coming.
The President is obligated under the Constitution to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Not to take care that the laws which he likes be faithfully executed. This is not just a matter of differing interpretations of what the law says. Obama has flat out stated that he is not going to carry out the law as written.
Yeah, except that executive orders were never used to flat out override what was written into laws by Congress that were signed by the President. The law passed by Congress and signed by Obama, explicitly states that employers must offer health insurance to their employees starting January of 2014, with no options for "waivers", if they meet certain criteria. Obama issued an executive order saying that he will not enforce that provision, despite taking an oath to faithfully carry out the duties of the office of the President(which duties include an obligation to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed.").
Mitt Romney: Didn't know where Iran is, which I would think is kinda important if you're president. Announced that he didn't care about the fate of half of the citizens of the country.
So, instead people voted for Obama, who doesn't even know where Charleston, Savannah, and Jacksonville are?
You are quoting Ezra Klein, a man who said that the Constitution is hard to understand because it was written more than 100 years ago? Good grief, if he can't understand the Constitution, why would I think he understands something as intentionally obfuscated as the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act?
Do you believe that some people should be required to work for no pay (or for whatever the government decides is what they should be paid)? Do you believe it is right to force some people to do work they would not otherwise do?
If the answer is "Yes," then you're some kind of barbarian, and we're done here.
If the answer is "No," then I've got some bad news for you. That is what you are advocating.
I do not believe that someone who has no ability to pay, but who is suffering from an acute medical emergency should be turned away. But, I, also, believe that that is a decision that should be left up to the doctors, nurses, and hospitals. I believe that private citizens should band together to voluntarily create funds to provide healthcare for those who cannot otherwise afford it.
On the other hand I think we would be justifiably irate if it turned out that the Post Office was photographing every single postcard and processing the information it contained into a permanent database.
Except that it turns out that the Post Office is actually doing that. It is photographing EVERY piece of mail and processing the information and putting it into a database. I did not examine the articles closely enough to be sure, so I do not know if that includes evaluating what is written on postcards. I suspect not, but I also suspect that the information contained in the article would not have answered the question of whether they do or not.
You know, one thing you can't blame the old communist block for was being overly concerned for environment. But nice boogeyman-flavored word salad anyway.
That does not stop a lot of people who believe that Marxism is the economic system of the future from using environmentalism to advance their cause.
When Obama says things like this, people have problems with it because they do not stop to think about the meaning of the word transparent. When Obama uses it regarding government activity there are two relevant parts to the definition.
First, something that is transparent is something that one can see through. If you can't see through Obama by now, the problem is your eyesight, not with how obvious Obama has been.
Second, something that is transparent cannot be seen. Obama is working on making it impossible to see what the government is actually doing.
Lisbon to Minsk is about 3900 km. New York to Los Angeles is about 4500 km. I may be mistaken, but I believe that Los Angeles and New York compare more to London, Paris and Berlin than to Lisbon or Minsk (for their relative importance to their respective regions and for the number of people who travel between the two).
The Koch brothers do not use their businesses to promote their political agenda. They have set up other organizations through which to spend their money promoting their political agenda. As such they have done exactly as the OP recommended.
Have you ever watched a cat play with an animal it caught? Sometimes, they eat them when they are done, but often times they get up and walk away when they can't get it to move any more.
Except that they are not charging the drivers with operating an illegal taxi service (or any of the slightly different similar possible charges). They are charging the drivers with trespassing. Which means that this is merely the airport trying to get a cut of the money, rather than anything to do with any of the excuses used to justify the regulation of taxis.
The legal system disappears if everyone decides they can decide on their own which laws to be ignored.
The thing you overlook is WHY people start to ignore laws. It becomes common practice in a country to ignore laws which people do not like when the number and complexity of laws and regulations exceed the ability of anyone to keep track of what they need to do to remain in compliance with those laws and regulations. The U.S. has reached that point and has reached the point where that is beginning to happen. It has gotten so bad that the President of the United States decides on his own which laws to ignore, even when some of those laws were ones that he fought to have passed.
Except that this is not about them actually ignoring the law. The airport has declared that those who drive others as part of the services offered by these "rideshare" companies are trespassing on airport property. How are these drivers different from people I know who drive people from outside the area of the city serviced by taxis to the airport for a small fee? I know several retired men who drive people to the airport for a small fee which covers their fuel costs, wear and tear on the vehicle, and a small amount for their time. They do this mostly as a way to help out others (there is a non-profit organization that offers this service along with several others).
That would depend on the definition of a "good" regulation. You seem to cite the airbag regulation as a bad thing. Yet what was the alternative?
The alternative was to let the automotive companies compete over who had the best airbags and let the consumers decide which cars were the best value for their money...including safety features. When airbags first came out, they were introduced by certain automakers as a way of differentiating their cars as safer than other cars. As time went on, manufacturers introduced them in more and more models, because there was a demand for cars with them in. However, when it became apparent that some consumers would not spend the extra money for airbags, at least a few of them because they could not afford that extra cost, some people decided that if you could not afford a car with airbags, you shouldn't have a car and got the government to mandate that everyone who bought a car had to pay for airbags.
When I came into work today in my car I benefited from regulation of air-bags...
So, how badly was your car damaged in the accident? If you were not in an accident, you did not benefit from the regulations on airbags. You did. however, get to pay more for your car because of them.
That is likely not entirely true (if even partially true). I worked in retail for quite some time and that was the mantra of every head of loss prevention but one. That one explained that the statistics that statement is based on are flawed. The correct interpretation of that study was that employees caught stealing from the store admitted to stealing more from the store than outsiders caught stealing admitted. The original study that is the source of that statement was based on interviews with people caught stealing from the store. When employees were caught stealing they were more likely to admit stealing before they were caught than outsiders who were caught stealing. In addition, they admitted to stealing a higher monetary value of stuff than outsiders admitted to. There are several factors that would contribute to employees admitting to stealing more than outsiders do, but employees caught stealing are less likely to downplay the amount they have stolen in the past than outsiders.
Don't blame Texas, blame your Congressman (or woman). That is where you can make a difference. Encourage other people to blame their Congressional representatives.
I'm sorry, but lobbying is not the same as controlling. It is the sum of the Congressional representatives which people have elected to Congress who control how much money any particular state gets. While Texas has one of the largest contingents of Congressional representatives (possibly the largest, but I don't feel like looking that up at the moment) they are still far from the majority (especially considering that they only have two Senators, just like every other state and it takes a majority of the Senators to pass any spending bill).
Except of course that Texas (nor any other specific state) does not actually control how much money the federal government spends in that state. When the federal government consistently spends more than it takes in in taxes it is rather hard for states to manage to pay more in federal taxes than the federal government spends in those states.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the problem is that Obama is deciding on his own which provisions of which laws to enforce, regardless of whether or not he considers those laws constitutional.
Actually, the case can be made that the President has a duty NOT to enforce laws which he believes to be unconstitutional (the Constitution says that certain things are not subject to being enacted into law. It nowhere says who is supposed to decide what is and is not constitutional. The implication being that each and every government official is supposed to reject any laws which violate the constitution). Under that interpretation, Obama's decision to not enforce DOMA was defensible. However, his decision to grant waivers to the No Child Left Behind Act, his decision to delay the employer mandate under the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act, and several others (including this one) are not.
So, you are perfectly happy that the rules are whatever the people in charge say they are today...and subject to change when that suits the interests of those in charge. I much prefer a nation of laws, where the rules are the same for everyone and change only when a process is followed that most people agree upon and that we can see the change coming.
The President is obligated under the Constitution to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Not to take care that the laws which he likes be faithfully executed. This is not just a matter of differing interpretations of what the law says. Obama has flat out stated that he is not going to carry out the law as written.
Yeah, except that executive orders were never used to flat out override what was written into laws by Congress that were signed by the President. The law passed by Congress and signed by Obama, explicitly states that employers must offer health insurance to their employees starting January of 2014, with no options for "waivers", if they meet certain criteria. Obama issued an executive order saying that he will not enforce that provision, despite taking an oath to faithfully carry out the duties of the office of the President(which duties include an obligation to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed.").
Mitt Romney: Didn't know where Iran is, which I would think is kinda important if you're president. Announced that he didn't care about the fate of half of the citizens of the country.
So, instead people voted for Obama, who doesn't even know where Charleston, Savannah, and Jacksonville are?
You are quoting Ezra Klein, a man who said that the Constitution is hard to understand because it was written more than 100 years ago? Good grief, if he can't understand the Constitution, why would I think he understands something as intentionally obfuscated as the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act?
Do you believe that some people should be required to work for no pay (or for whatever the government decides is what they should be paid)? Do you believe it is right to force some people to do work they would not otherwise do?
If the answer is "Yes," then you're some kind of barbarian, and we're done here.
If the answer is "No," then I've got some bad news for you. That is what you are advocating.
I do not believe that someone who has no ability to pay, but who is suffering from an acute medical emergency should be turned away. But, I, also, believe that that is a decision that should be left up to the doctors, nurses, and hospitals. I believe that private citizens should band together to voluntarily create funds to provide healthcare for those who cannot otherwise afford it.
On the other hand I think we would be justifiably irate if it turned out that the Post Office was photographing every single postcard and processing the information it contained into a permanent database.
Except that it turns out that the Post Office is actually doing that. It is photographing EVERY piece of mail and processing the information and putting it into a database. I did not examine the articles closely enough to be sure, so I do not know if that includes evaluating what is written on postcards. I suspect not, but I also suspect that the information contained in the article would not have answered the question of whether they do or not.
You know, one thing you can't blame the old communist block for was being overly concerned for environment. But nice boogeyman-flavored word salad anyway.
That does not stop a lot of people who believe that Marxism is the economic system of the future from using environmentalism to advance their cause.
Of course New York City is ready for digital voting! Think of the opportunities for even greater voter fraud and intimidation.
When Obama says things like this, people have problems with it because they do not stop to think about the meaning of the word transparent. When Obama uses it regarding government activity there are two relevant parts to the definition.
First, something that is transparent is something that one can see through. If you can't see through Obama by now, the problem is your eyesight, not with how obvious Obama has been.
Second, something that is transparent cannot be seen. Obama is working on making it impossible to see what the government is actually doing.
Lisbon to Minsk is about 3900 km. New York to Los Angeles is about 4500 km. I may be mistaken, but I believe that Los Angeles and New York compare more to London, Paris and Berlin than to Lisbon or Minsk (for their relative importance to their respective regions and for the number of people who travel between the two).
The Koch brothers do not use their businesses to promote their political agenda. They have set up other organizations through which to spend their money promoting their political agenda. As such they have done exactly as the OP recommended.
Have you ever watched a cat play with an animal it caught? Sometimes, they eat them when they are done, but often times they get up and walk away when they can't get it to move any more.
Except that they are not charging the drivers with operating an illegal taxi service (or any of the slightly different similar possible charges). They are charging the drivers with trespassing. Which means that this is merely the airport trying to get a cut of the money, rather than anything to do with any of the excuses used to justify the regulation of taxis.
The legal system disappears if everyone decides they can decide on their own which laws to be ignored.
The thing you overlook is WHY people start to ignore laws. It becomes common practice in a country to ignore laws which people do not like when the number and complexity of laws and regulations exceed the ability of anyone to keep track of what they need to do to remain in compliance with those laws and regulations. The U.S. has reached that point and has reached the point where that is beginning to happen. It has gotten so bad that the President of the United States decides on his own which laws to ignore, even when some of those laws were ones that he fought to have passed.
Except that this is not about them actually ignoring the law. The airport has declared that those who drive others as part of the services offered by these "rideshare" companies are trespassing on airport property. How are these drivers different from people I know who drive people from outside the area of the city serviced by taxis to the airport for a small fee? I know several retired men who drive people to the airport for a small fee which covers their fuel costs, wear and tear on the vehicle, and a small amount for their time. They do this mostly as a way to help out others (there is a non-profit organization that offers this service along with several others).
That would depend on the definition of a "good" regulation. You seem to cite the airbag regulation as a bad thing. Yet what was the alternative?
The alternative was to let the automotive companies compete over who had the best airbags and let the consumers decide which cars were the best value for their money...including safety features. When airbags first came out, they were introduced by certain automakers as a way of differentiating their cars as safer than other cars. As time went on, manufacturers introduced them in more and more models, because there was a demand for cars with them in. However, when it became apparent that some consumers would not spend the extra money for airbags, at least a few of them because they could not afford that extra cost, some people decided that if you could not afford a car with airbags, you shouldn't have a car and got the government to mandate that everyone who bought a car had to pay for airbags.
When I came into work today in my car I benefited from regulation of air-bags...
So, how badly was your car damaged in the accident? If you were not in an accident, you did not benefit from the regulations on airbags. You did. however, get to pay more for your car because of them.
Most loss in retail is employee theft.
That is likely not entirely true (if even partially true). I worked in retail for quite some time and that was the mantra of every head of loss prevention but one. That one explained that the statistics that statement is based on are flawed. The correct interpretation of that study was that employees caught stealing from the store admitted to stealing more from the store than outsiders caught stealing admitted. The original study that is the source of that statement was based on interviews with people caught stealing from the store. When employees were caught stealing they were more likely to admit stealing before they were caught than outsiders who were caught stealing. In addition, they admitted to stealing a higher monetary value of stuff than outsiders admitted to. There are several factors that would contribute to employees admitting to stealing more than outsiders do, but employees caught stealing are less likely to downplay the amount they have stolen in the past than outsiders.
Don't blame Texas, blame your Congressman (or woman). That is where you can make a difference. Encourage other people to blame their Congressional representatives.
Which means that you cannot do what sociocapitalist recommended.
I'm sorry, but lobbying is not the same as controlling. It is the sum of the Congressional representatives which people have elected to Congress who control how much money any particular state gets. While Texas has one of the largest contingents of Congressional representatives (possibly the largest, but I don't feel like looking that up at the moment) they are still far from the majority (especially considering that they only have two Senators, just like every other state and it takes a majority of the Senators to pass any spending bill).
Except of course that Texas (nor any other specific state) does not actually control how much money the federal government spends in that state. When the federal government consistently spends more than it takes in in taxes it is rather hard for states to manage to pay more in federal taxes than the federal government spends in those states.