Two events give us the Bush agenda in a nutshell

[Hurin_Rules]

1. After making loud noises about individuals filing for bankrupcy, Bush passes a bill lobbied for by banks and big credit card corporations which prevents more of the American people from filing for bankrupcy:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...nkruptcy_dc_18

2. A few days later, when a federal judge allows United Airlines, while in bankrupcy protection, to eliminate its own pension plan to save money, Bush is completely silent. While the pension plan will have to be handed over to the government, give reduced benefits and be paid for by American taxpayers, the pension plans of top executives, on the other hand, are 'proofed' and therefore won't suffer:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.../buggs/1884536

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050510/...nited_airlines

The message: don't you dare default on your responsibilities, unless you're a major corporation, in which case, go ahead, and remember to get the American people to pay so you can make higher profits.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The message: don't you dare default on your responsibilities, unless you're a major corporation, in which case, go ahead, and remember to get the American people to pay so you can make higher profits.

Its always been so unfourtunatly. Bush is no better or worse than other presidents in this matter.

[Pindar]

Regarding #1: good (though it is actually the President who signs the bill, the Congress passed it).

Regarding #2: The President doesn't control the Courts.

[Hurin_Rules]

Regarding #2: The President doesn't control the Courts.

When the Schiavo thing went down the Republicans went ballistic and tried to use congress to get the courts to intervene. Bush even came back from his holiday early to sign it in the middle of the night. When a corporation takes advantage of its employees and makes the US taxpayer foot the bill, however, there is complete silence. I find that telling.

[Pindar]

When the Schiavo thing went down the Republicans went ballistic and tried to use congress to get the courts to intervene. Bush even came back from his holiday early to sign it in the middle of the night. When a corporation takes advantage of its employees and makes the US taxpayer foot the bill, however, there is complete silence. I find that telling.

The Schiavo thing, as it were, was a Congressional action (which was not limited to Republicans if you note the vote): specifically a call by the Congress for a Denovo Review. A Denovo ruling, if allowed, permits new evidence to be introduced at the Appellate level. Typically, such is not possible as appeals are constrained by what preceded them. Bush signed the bill as he has with every other bill brought before him. He has not vetoed once in five years. The Court did not recognize this action (and rightly so in my opinion). This reinforces the earlier point. Neither the Congress nor the Executive dictate Court action.

If the point is that the President should complain about the ruling even though he has no jurisdiction or impact on the issue, I'm not sure that really constitutes a deep insight into an agenda.

[Hurin_Rules]

If the point is that the President should complain about the ruling even though he has no jurisdiction or impact on the issue, I'm not sure that really constitutes a deep insight into an agenda.

Come now Pindar, I'm not asking the president to 'complain', and as president he most certainly could have a huge impact on the issue if he chose. Why couldn't he have gotten legislation passed to prevent corporations from doing exactly the same thing that he and congress just prevented individuals from doing? Obviously, because he is fine with laws that protect corporations, but vocal in his assaults on laws that protect the American people.

[Pindar]

Come now Pindar, I'm not asking the president to 'complain', and as president he most certainly could have a huge impact on the issue if he chose. He could easily have gotten legislation passed to prevent corporations from doing exactly the same thing that he and congress just prevented individuals from doing. Obviously, he is fine with laws that protect corporations, but he is vocal in his assaults on laws that protect the American people.

Passing legislation is not as simple as you suppose. Further, and perhaps more to the point: the Juridical standard in the U.S. allows Judges to determine both legality and appliabiltiy. Thus, a Judge bent on a verdict could simply state recently passed law X does not apply to situation Y by narrowing the meaning of the law.

[Nelson]

Hurin, do Canadians talk a lot about US politics?

The reason I ask is that here in the backroom at least, Canadians have a lot more to say about the USA than their own government/county. Does this reflect a general Canadian fascination with things American or is it just the nature of patrons here?

This is in no way a criticism. Say what you want. I’m just curious is all.

[Hurin_Rules]

Hurin, do Canadians talk a lot about US politics?

The reason I ask is that here in the backroom at least, Canadians have a lot more to say about the USA than their own government/county. Does this reflect a general Canadian fascination with things American or is it just the nature of patrons here?

The short answer: yes. Canada is a small country, the USA a large one (in terms of population and economic, military and political clout), so events in the USA often have more of an effect on us Canadians than what happens in our own country. As one of our best Prime Ministers once noted, living beside the USA is a lot like sleeping next to an elephant: no matter how good natured and kindly the beast, one can't help but be affected by each shift and rustle it makes.

[Hurin_Rules]

Passing legislation is not as simple as you suppose. Further, and perhaps more to the point: the Juridical standard in the U.S. allows Judges to determine both legality and appliabiltiy. Thus, a Judge bent on a verdict could simply state recently passed law X does not apply to situation Y by narrowing the meaning of the law.

I never said it would be simple. And yet, Bush and his party managed to pass the laws against individual bankrupcy, no? Why can't he do the same--or at least try to do the same-- for corporations?

[Pindar]

I never said it would be simple. And yet, Bush and his party managed to pass the laws against individual bankrupcy, no? Why can't he do the same--or at least try to do the same-- for corporations?

No, you never said it would be simple, but you did say he could easily get legislation passed. This is not the case. The process is fairly involved. The recently passed bill was a long time in the making.


Second, individual bankruptcy is not illegal. The recent legislation rightly makes filling for bankruptcy status where ones' depts are simply erased more difficult as those who have accrued the dept have a base responsibility to that dept.

Third, there are laws that dictate the terms of corporate bankruptcy as well. In the recent case, the company asked for a specific judgment that removes a base responsibility the corporation has toward pensions. This is not a Legislative determination, but a Judicial one as there is a standing law. The petitioner is asking for a revoking of duty. This does not involve the Executive.

[Hurin_Rules]

No, you never said it would be simple, but you did say he could easily get legislation passed. This is not the case. The process is fairly involved. The recently passed bill was a long time in the making.

When the president's party controls the white house and both houses of congress (something that hasn't happened in what... a quarter century?) it is fair to say that he has a relatively easy time passing bills--or should have, if he is an effective leader.

Second, individual bankruptcy is not illegal. The recent legislation rightly makes filling for bankruptcy status where ones' depts are simply erased more difficult as those who have accrued the dept have a base responsibility to that dept.

Third, there are laws that dictate the terms of corporate bankruptcy as well. In the recent case, the company asked for a specific judgment that removes a base responsibility the corporation has toward pensions. This is not a Legislative determination, but a Judicial one as there is a standing law. The petitioner is asking for a revoking of duty. This does not involve the Executive.

You honestly don't see any similarities here? The president launches a major effort to make it harder for individuals to escape a 'base responsiblity' for their debts through bankruptcy, but when a multinational corporation tries to escape a 'base responsibility' for its debts through bankruptcy, we hear not a peep?

The congress makes the laws and the president passes and executes them. He can't change the laws one minute and hide behind them another.

[PanzerJaeger]

In my understanding, a huge company going bankrupt would have a big impact on many people's lives.. ie layoffs or a complete disintegration of the company.

Thats a lot different than Joe Spend who cant pay for that BMW he bought.


In any event as Pindar said the president doesnt have control over this... thats never stopped the Bush Bashers before though.

[Hurin_Rules]

In any event as Pindar said the president doesnt have control over this...

Well then, if Pindar said it, it must be true.

Come on, of course he has control over the laws that get passed! He just demonstrated this in the case of personal bankruptcy. He is the executive, the constitution gives him veto power, and he leads the party with majorities in both houses of congress!

[Don Corleone]

Hurin,

1) Show me where in the entire legislative agenda for personal bankruptcy reform Bush was listed as one of the sponsors. Why do you say 'Bush got it passed'?

2) While I agree wholeheartedly with clamping down on personaly bankruptcy reform (more on why in a second), I do find the bankruptcy court's findings (not Bush's free pass for a buddy) disgusting. It's a big part of the reason why American corporations aren't even more dominant globally then we currently are. Look at the industries we excel at: semiconductors, software, financial services... very little government help and if you screw up, tough luck, you're going belly up. Look at the industries government does bail out on a regular basis: airlines, automotive... they just get worse. Why? Because there's no pain attached to poor decisions.

I totally disagree with PJ's characterization that somehow a corporate entity has a value in it's own right. People won't stop flying, and those planes will still need employees. So if United folds and Continental picks up all those routes, then Continental will hire back any workers that were necessary in the first place. It's how a capitalist economy stays efficient. Propping up bloated slugs that cannot or will not make sound decisions regarding their operating policies and funding their mistakes is a formula for disaster.

Now, why do I agree with the personal bankruptcy reforms? Did you know that as long as you reside in the state of Florida when you file, you're allowed to retain: 2houses, up to 2 vehicles per registered drivers in your family, timeshares, investment vehicles, the works. It is a crisis down here to the South. More than a few disreputable people run up huge credit lines on houses, cars, vacation homes, then move to Florida and voila, it's all free.

Except it isn't. Any of the rest of us pay for it in higher interest rates. Shame on them, and I wish the government would bring back debters prison for people like that.

[Hurin_Rules]

1) Show me where in the entire legislative agenda for personal bankruptcy reform Bush was listed as one of the sponsors. Why do you say 'Bush got it passed'?

I should have been more specific: congress passed it, Bush signed it into law.

Bush repeatedly praised the legislation and promised to sign it when it was in the house:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7575010/

I agree with you that some people were abusing the bankruptcy laws; but while we're cracking down on individuals that abuse, shouldn't we also be cracking down on corporations that abuse? All those corporations in Bermuda evading taxes and abusing the system-- are they any better than individuals?

[Don Corleone]

Did you read my post? I advocate market driven, throw'em to the wolves capitalism. Where in all of that did you get the impression that I think we should go soft on corporations filing for bankruptcy?

[Pindar]

When the president's party controls the white house and both houses of congress (something that hasn't happened in what... a quarter century?) it is fair to say that he has a relatively easy time passing bills--or should have, if he is an effective leader.

Alas. For a law to come to be it must have a sponsor. It must often pass through a relevant committee. It must pass through two distinct legislative bodies before it goes to the White House. Typically revisions are made during this process which means the bill must be resubmitted. If this occurs in one body it must also be recognized by the other body. This ping pong action continues until a final version is passed.

The President is not the leader of Congress. He does not control it. Party affiliation does not equal control. The U.S. is not a Parliamentary System: individual Congressmen and Senators have their own agendas that may or may not correspond with the White House and as long as they have local support are independant.

That the Congress is controlled by one Party does make things easier than when there is division, but this does not mean it is easy or that the President controls the flotsam and jetsam.

You honestly don't see any similarities here?

I am constrained by my understanding of the system. A President cannot control a Judge's ruling.

The congress makes the laws and the president passes and executes them. He can't change the laws one minute and hide behind them another.

Presidents don't execute laws nor change them.

Well then, if Pindar said it, it must be true.

The sooner you come to this understanding the sooner you will escape intellectual befuddlement.

One has only to step from behind the curtain and into the light to understand its warmth.

[Pindar]

Did you read my post? I advocate market driven, throw'em to the wolves capitalism.

Hear! Hear!

[Hurin_Rules]

Did you read my post? I advocate market driven, throw'em to the wolves capitalism. Where in all of that did you get the impression that I think we should go soft on corporations filing for bankruptcy?

Hmmm... did you read my post? I advocated treating individuals and corporations in the same way. Where in all of that did you get the impression that I think we should go soft on corporations filing for bankruptcy?

I'm saying if you crack down on individuals, the least you could do is be fair and crack down on corporations at the same time.

[Hurin_Rules]

Alas. For a law to come to be it must have a sponsor. It must often pass through a relevant committee. It must pass through two distinct legislative bodies before it goes to the White House. Typically revisions are made during this process which means the bill must be resubmitted. If this occurs in one body it must also be recognized by the other body. This ping pong action continues until a final version is passed.

The President is not the leader of Congress. He does not control it. Party affiliation does not equal control. The U.S. is not a Parliamentary System: individual Congressmen and Senators have their own agendas that may or may not correspond to with the White House and as long as they have local support are independant.

Ah, I'm sorry, you're right. The president has no control at all over the lawmaking process.

C'mon, you're being deliberately obtuse here. Of course the president is not a dictator. But to say he has no control over congress is just ludicrous. He has veto power, a major voice in the party that controls both houses of congress, and he takes credit for passing bills.

I am constrained by my understanding of the system. A President cannot control a Judge's ruling.

Where did I say he could? He does, however, have a major say in how his party reacts to the ruling and what legislation will be passed to respond to it. He clearly showed this in the recent law on personal bankruptcy.

Presidents don't execute laws nor change them.

Why is the presidency called the executive branch of government then?

Under 'executive branch', my dictionary reads:
n : the branch of the United States government that is responsible for carrying out the laws [syn: Executive, Office of the President]
]

[Don Corleone]

Hmmm... did you read my post? I advocated treating individuals and corporations in the same way. Where in all of that did you get the impression that I think we should go soft on corporations filing for bankruptcy?

I'm saying if you crack down on individuals, the least you could do is be fair and crack down on corporations at the same time.

I SAID THE SAME DAMN THING How much harsher then "Let United go belly up" can I be? You want me to hunt down the CEO's son and snipe him? Bring you his head on a pike? For crying out loud Hurin, you gotta recognize when people aren't arguing with you.

[Don Corleone]

Ah, I'm sorry, you're right. The president has no control at all over the lawmaking process.

C'mon, you're being deliberately obtuse here. Of course the president is not a dictator. But to say he has no control over congress is just ludicrous. He has veto power, a major voice in the party that controls both houses of congress, and he takes credit for passing bills.



Where did I say he could? He does, however, have a major say in how his party reacts to the ruling and what legislation will be passed to respond to it. He clearly showed this in the recent law on personal bankruptcy.



Why is the presidency called the executive branch of government then?

Under 'executive branch', my dictionary reads:
n : the branch of the United States government that is responsible for carrying out the laws [syn: Executive, Office of the President]
]

Pindar's not being obtuse here Hurin, you are. I thought you seriously wanted to talk about this crap with United and our bankruptcy courts forcing taxpayers to fund another failure.

But you don't. You want to make this a bash Bush moment, even though he had absolutely nothing to do with it. You're a piece of work... people agree with you and you turn around and say "Aha! But you disagree.... Bush is guilty, guilty, guilty!!!!" Grow up.

[Hurin_Rules]

I SAID THE SAME DAMN THING How much harsher then "Let United go belly up" can I be? You want me to hunt down the CEO's son and snipe him? Bring you his head on a pike? For crying out loud Hurin, you gotta recognize when people aren't arguing with you.

My good man Don, I was trying to point out that you had done the same: you had assumed I was disagreeing with you when I wasn't.

Anyway, lets put that behind us. We both agree that in the interests of fairness, if nothing else, individuals and corporations should be treated alike. Pindar and PJ seem to disagree. Perhaps we should let them respond?

P.S. Of course this is supposed to be a Bush bashing thread. Didn't you read the title?!?!?!

[Don Corleone]

Well, fair enough, but for cyring out loud man, Bush did not give that homeless guy down at your local hospital stomach cancer. He didn't create mutant cockroaches in a lab, he didn't shoot his neighbor's dog. He does some stupid things sometimes, granted, but you can't let that rage blind you. The United story goes way, way way beyond Bush. It's about American government in general, regardless of who's at the helm. I'm not a believer in pensions, because they require an unrealistic rate of growth in the company in order to be able to fund them, but I am a huge huge believer in the requirement that companies honor all debts. What comes next, United can't afford it so some judge orders the taxpayers have to pay their fuel bills?

[PanzerJaeger]

Well then, if Pindar said it, it must be true.

Forgive me for agreeing with Pindar...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

But to say he has no control over congress is just ludicrous. He has veto power, a major voice in the party that controls both houses of congress, and he takes credit for passing bills.

Then how come he cant even get his judicial appointments to get a vote in the senate? Once more most people give the president too much credit for what good happens under their admnistration and also to much blame for what goes wrong. He hasnt near the power you seem to suggest.

[Don Corleone]

Yeah, no kidding. Clinton had a Democratic Senate & House and couldn't get socialized medicine passed. Carter got stomped every time he said boo (Reagan and Bush I were dealing with opposite congressional majorities).

[Pindar]

Ah, I'm sorry, you're right. The president has no control at all over the lawmaking process.

C'mon, you're being deliberately obtuse here. Of course the president is not a dictator. But to say he has no control over congress is just ludicrous. He has veto power, a major voice in the party that controls both houses of congress, and he takes credit for passing bills.

The President does not control Congress. He is part of a distinct Branch. He can veto bills, but cannot determine what comes to his desk. This does not mean he cannot show support or condemn some work in process, but that is not control. It is rhetoric that has more or less force depending on the popularity of the President at the time. Now the President clearly supported the bankruptcy bill, and rightly fully so. If you wish to criticise that support fine, but that doesn't really fit into the second point you tried to connect it to. The United ruling was Judicial and as I already stated referred to removing a standard duty to pensions. This duty is part of standing law. This is not connected to the President. He cannot control Judicial rulings or create a law or create some other provision that anticipates and counteracts a Judges ruling on a particular bankruptcy case.

Why is the presidency called the executive branch of government then?

Under 'executive branch', my dictionary reads:
n : the branch of the United States government that is responsible for carrying out the laws [syn: Executive, Office of the President]
]

The Executive and the Executive Branch is not the same thing. Your comments have been directed to the President. The President does not execute law or create it. Now there are elements within the Executive Branch that serve an executing function. A simple example would be the Attorney General. This post is nominated by the President and it is a Cabinet Position, but the position is distinct from the Presidency. The Attorney General is the highest ranking officer of the Court and his job is to enforce the law, even when that involves the Presidency itself. This is why the President also has a Chief Legal Council.

Anyway, lets put that behind us. We both agree that in the interests of fairness, if nothing else, individuals and corporations should be treated alike. Pindar and PJ seem to disagree. Perhaps we should let them respond?

I don't think you have understood the thrust of my posts. My central point has been directed at your second criticism: the Court ruling. I have been pointing out that the President does not have control over a Judicial ruling to overturn pension duties. Without control condemnation seems difficult to maintain unless it is criticism that he didn't complain. This means your central criticism of a Bush agenda fails. This does not mean I support corporate welfare. I see such as smacking of socialist effeminacy. I believe in the Market and would rather see weak companies go down.

[Hurin_Rules]

The Executive and the Executive Branch is not the same thing. Your comments have been directed to the President. The President does not execute law or create it. Now there are elements within the Executive Branch that serve an executing function. A simple example would be the Attorney General. This post is nominated by the President and it is a Cabinet Position, but the position is distinct from the Presidency. The Attorney General is the highest ranking officer of the Court and his job is to enforce the law, even when that involves the Presidency itself. This is why the President also has a Chief Legal Council.

Then why does the dictionary definition and common parlance hold 'executive' and 'office of the president' as synonymous?

You're splitting hairs here.

You're honestly going to tell me that the president has no control over his own attorney general, whom he appoints, consults with, and fires at will? Come on.

I don't think you have understood the thrust of my posts. My central point has been directed at your second criticism: the Court ruling. I have been pointing out that the President does not have control over a Judicial ruling to overturn pension duties. Without control condemnation seems difficult to maintain unless it is criticism that he didn't comlain. This means your central criticism of a Bush agenda fails. This does not mean I support corporate welfare. I see such as smacking of socialist effeminacy. I believe in the Market and would rather see weak companies go down.

And I don't think you have understood the thrust of my post. One of my central points has been that the president regularly responds to problems with the laws of the nation by playing a central role in the making of new laws. He just did this with the personal bankruptcy laws. I never said the president could or should control judicial rulings. It is his repsonse to the rulings I am talking about, not the rulings themselves. And if you examine his response to the bankruptcy laws regarding individuals, and compare them to his response to the bankruptcy laws regarding corporations, you will see a clear dichotomy that illuminates his agenda.