Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump

[Sandy Larsen]

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I don't agree about what Obama did during the meltdown. He had an opportunity that no American president has had wince FDR to alter the American economy in a more populist way, he didn't.

 

I think it would be a mistake to change the workings of the government radically in a short period of time.

But it doesn't really matter what we think, because legislation for major changes wouldn't have made it to Obama's desk anyway... Congress wouldn't have had the necessary votes. Just like when there weren't enough votes to pass single-payer healthcare.

 

Edited February 29, 2020 by Sandy Larsen

[Dennis Berube]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

But is doesn't really matter what we think, because legislation for major changes wouldn't have made it to Obama's desk anyway... Congress wouldn't have had the necessary votes. Just like when there weren't enough votes to pass single-payer healthcare.

I could accept that view if Obama went to the public and made a case for an FDR style New Deal, but he never did that. Instead, he essentially invited Wall Street to draft his health care bill and put through a extremely tame financial regulation bill. He never tried to lobby the public for a ban on derivatives, reinstatement of Glass-Stegall, or even made more than a pathetic attempt at some kind of public option, etc.... When JFK wanted the test ban treaty, it was politically near impossible at the beginning, but he got out there and made his case to the public until opinion turned and forced Congress to push it through. Real change that benefits the public usually requires a fight, which requires integrity ala Tulsi.

 

2 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

A ban on Big Gulp Sodas is what he is most remembered for.

I don't know, he turned NYC into a corporate nightmare, fought unions, voted for every "kill brown people" action he could and genuinely believes a free market is a real concept. Economically, he is Reagan, trickle down, which any honest observer must acknowledge is awful for the "general welfare" that the POTUS is supposed to promote according to the Constitution. Not to mention his obvious racism, sexism, and "I'm going to heaven" attitude that Trump exudes. He is a Republican hands down, which is great for the GOP I suppose, but not FDR type Democrats like myself.

[Bob Ness]

In other news... yes indeed Pelosi should have enforced subpoenas as is allowed in the Constitution. The milk toast offensive isn't looking very good right now.

Methinks today's ruling could be taken advantage of however bc if Courts refuse to enforce Congressional subpoenas by extension they can't step in to nulify Congress' enforcement either.

Edited February 29, 2020 by Bob Ness

[W. Niederhut]

9 hours ago, Ty Carpenter said:

His #1 achievement is the current economy. The stock market is not the economy. Anyways, this is nothing more than a temporary drop due to the Coronavirus fear mongering. It will open up more buying opportunities once it settles and we will be back where we were earlier this year.

Why do I sense a bit of glee in your post? Are you that deranged that you wish the country would tank so you can continue the Orange Man Bad diatribe?

Ty, help me out here.  Can you you show me where the "booming Trump economy"-- "Trump's greatest achievement"-- started on this graph of U.S. GDP growth per year? (below)

The reason I ask is that I've been telling my family and friends for the past year that the "booming Trump economy" is a myth, and that stock market price increases have vastly outpaced earnings during Trump's tenure in the White House.

To give credit where credit is due, Trump has dramatically increased the Federal budget deficits and the growth rate of the national debt.

P.S. I sold the last of my stocks in January, and advised my friends to do the same-- BEFORE coronavirus was even a prominent issue.

Edited February 29, 2020 by W. Niederhut

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

In other news... yes indeed Pelosi should have enforced subpoenas as is allowed in the Constitution. The milk toast offensive isn't looking very good right now.

Methinks today's ruling could be taken advantage of however bc if Courts refuse to enforce Congressional subpoenas by extension they can't step in to nulify Congress' enforcement either.

Remind me — how many officers does Pelosi command?

[Dennis Berube]

Bloomberg....
 

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/02/a-republican-plutocrat-tries-to-buy-the-democratic-nomination

[Ron Bulman]

Long as we're talking about current affairs, and how they relate to JFK I guess...

My hopes of pending retirement took a big hit the last few days.  I wonder how the stock market might affect the coming election in the next few months.  Then again it won't matter to me if I pass from Coronavirus. 

[James DiEugenio]

Dennis,

Everyone should read that article on Bloomberg.  Its devastating.  Wheeler says NYC was run well, yeah for the rich.  Sort of like what JFK said about Johnson.  "Well, he is a good senate majority  leader;"  to which Kennedy replied, "Yeah for Texas."

Also, Sandy forgets, his first two years, Obama had significant  majorities in each house.  In the senate it was 56, in the house is was 256.

The GOP was scared stiff Obama was going to start a mini New Deal.  They knew that if he did that, it would reconstitute the political calculus and undo all the work they had done to divide up the Democratic Party.  No need to fear Good ole Barry.   The Dems were petrified of another Jessie Jackson; they got an Oreo cookie instead. Let us never forget, Obama gave us Perez at the DNC.

 

Edited February 29, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[Bob Ness]

2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Remind me — how many officers does Pelosi command?

I assume you mean LEOs Cliff in which case you could find out by using the "Google Machine". But here's a relevent quote from Salon:

In 1821, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress has the “inherent authority” to arrest witnesses for failing to comply with lawful orders. That authority was reinforced in 1927, when, according to Reuters, the Court ruled that the Senate acted within the law by “sending its deputy sergeant-at-arms to Ohio to arrest and detain the brother of the then-attorney general.”

Please note the House Sergeant at Arms has that authority also and is directed by the Speaker of the House and I believe committee chairs to act on their "Constitutional Authority" as opposed to "Statutory Authority".

In the ruling above, it looks like the DC District Court panel ruled 2-1 that the court shouldn't rule on disputes between Congress and the Executive branch because if accommodation wasn't agreed to between the two parties other remedies are available. One option is to use it's own enforcement authority. Article threes don't want to rule on arguments between the ones and twos because it puts them into political spats.

If that's the case the same panel should also rule in favor of the House's authority to detain and fine McGahn (1 year $100k). Then subpoena him again on day 366. It's completely realistic to dust these old prerogatives off in extreme situations even if they haven't been used lately. It's what they're on the books for.

In this case I think it's the only realistic option unless the Dems win an en Banc review with the entire court.

Or roll over and play dead.

Their likely "solution".

Edited February 29, 2020 by Bob Ness

[Bob Ness]

Tom Freidmans' genious idea of a coalition government explains why I get so annoyed with mainstream Dem strategy. He wants to completely anhilalate the Democrat's slim chance of taking the Senate by making sure five Dem Senators join the cabinet of the nominee.

This is why Trump was elected. That's the brains at work.

Yikes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/25/opinion/democratic-primary-candidates.html

Edited February 29, 2020 by Bob Ness

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

I assume you mean LEOs Cliff in which case you could find out by using the "Google Machine". But here's a relevent quote from Salon:

In 1821, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress has the “inherent authority” to arrest witnesses for failing to comply with lawful orders. That authority was reinforced in 1927, when, according to Reuters, the Court ruled that the Senate acted within the law by “sending its deputy sergeant-at-arms to Ohio to arrest and detain the brother of the then-attorney general.”

So Pelosi sends the sergeant-at-arms and his deputy to detain McGahn. What prevents McGahn from telling them to screw off?

Just curious...

[Bob Ness]

5 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

So Pelosi sends the sergeant-at-arms and his deputy to detain McGahn. What prevents McGahn from telling them to screw off?

Just curious...

Handcuffs? Capitol Police? Same as everyone else.

Edited February 29, 2020 by Bob Ness

[Cliff Varnell]

43 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

Handcuffs? Capitol Police? Same as everyone else.

Are you sure the Capitol Police have jurisdiction?

Just asking...

[Sandy Larsen]

 

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

[Obama] had an opportunity that no American president has had since FDR to alter the American economy in a more populist way... 

 

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Sandy forgets, his first two years, Obama had significant  majorities in each houses.  In the senate it was 56, in the house is was 256.

And you think those 56 Democrats in the Senate and 256 in the House were all (or largely) supportive of socialist policies?

I don't think so, Jim.

 

[Bob Ness]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Are you sure the Capitol Police have jurisdiction?

Just asking...

The Sergeant at Arms is responsible for the Capitol police but whether he commands them I'm not certain. They have cells as do the DC police who can also jail them. Either way the SAA has jurisdiction. The other remedies for enforcing subpeonas mentioned by the DC District Court have huge hurdles in today's political climate.

My thinking was throw one of his recalcitrant former staffers in jail (Bolton maybe?) rather than a current member just to fire a warning shot across the bow to others.