The failure of fucktards(*) to even grasp the difference between waste and distributed spending is one of the more exasperating symptoms of their inability to think.
The shutdown represented billions of dollars wasted: the output of government employees who will be paid despite not working, the costs to stop and restart programs, rising interest costs and the loss of confidence in the U.S. throughout the world, etc… I’d ask adaher to look up waste in a dictionary if he still doesn’t understand.
Expanding Medicaid would mean improved health care for millions of Americans, more income for doctors and other healthcare providers, etc. Money would be spent, not wasted. One might disapprove of such spending of course, but to conflate it with the pure waste of the shutdown – jobs, production and prosperity simply flushed down the toilet – shows immense confusion.
If that sort of confusion is sincere, and not just a debating stance, that may help explain why the beliefs of fucktards like adaher are so out-of-touch with those of sentient Americans.
(* - I’d prefer a better, less insulting word than “fucktard” to describe your politics, adaher. Can you help? Certainly “conservative” doesn’t work – that would be an insult to the many intelligent American conservatives of the 20th-century. Even “extreme right-winger” makes no sense; that term was applied to good-spirited sentient Americans like Goldwater or Reagan. Unless you can come up with an “ism” that encompasses your conflation of waste and spending, I’ll stick with “fucktard.”)
"…a seemingly insignificant event, the coining of the term “Tardist” presaged the rise of a political philosophy so utterly gormless as to render all previous definitions meaningless. A popular graffito and “bumper sticker” of the time captures its essence: “Facts have a liberal bias, so fuck 'em!”. Such historians as still exist cite the movement as directly leading to the rise of Chairman Beck and the subsequent collapse of civilization.
This ends our series on the History of the World, and we thank you for your kind attention, even as we cannot imagine why you bothered…"
The only way a person gets experience at being a President is to be elected one. There is no easy way to be president and when the majority of people pick one, and the one elected tries to do for the people that elected him. the other side will always complain. Now we are a very divided country so half the people will not be satisfied no matter what a president does, and it is not possible to put one’s promise’s to work. Too many times the opposition does all they can to make sure the policies do not get into law.
Which is why a good President doesn’t make their success contingent on what the legislature does. The Presidency is a co-equal branch. If 99% of your agenda requires new laws, you are likely doomed to failure even if your party controls Congress. LBJ was the last President to make such an agenda work, and despite that, he still failed because while he was a great Legislator in Chief, he didn’t actually know how to be President. He failed at his core job, while being successful at the things he could have done simply by being Senate Majority Leader.
Obama is on the same track. Good at getting legislation passed in his first two years, pretty awful at actually implementing that legislation. He seems to still think he’s a Senator, and that pesky bit about actually executing the laws is someone else’s job. Whose, he’s not sure.
Think carefully about this sentence, mull it over for a while. I have every confidence that, in time, you will see the flaw in the reasoning. Here, let me help a bit. A hint: the flaw has to do with it being amazingly stupid. That should be enough, don’t want to give it away…
Oh, Adaher. You are the last person around here who should be using a condescending tone…it actually makes me feel kinda sad.
And still wondering why you haven’t left us for those other, superior message boards. You never did answer my question about that…
I think it’s a fair question. What is the role of the executive branch? The only constitutional roles the executive has in regards to legislation is the veto power, and the Recommendation Clause, which is to recommend legislation.
Obama recommends legislation. He’s done his job in that regard. The rest of his job is to faithfully execute the law. THAT is what determines whether he’s a good President and it is the core of the Oath of Office.
I suspect his Canadian girlfriend got custody of them during a recent break-up. It also explains why **adaher **never answers your question: clearly it’s just too painful for him to talk about.