Obama issues 2nd veto threat in 2 days

[Jai Dee]

Some off-topic posts and replies as well as personal attacks (flames) have been deleted from this thread.

[Publicus]

Obama is now 3 for 3. The White House has issued veto threat number three in the third day of the new Congress.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obstructionist White House Threatens Veto of 40 hr Work Week

By Associated Press January 8, 2015 6:55 am

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House on Wednesday said President Barack Obama will veto legislation that would increase his health care law's definition of a full-time worker from 30 to 40 hours per week.

Republicans argue the health law's 30-hour requirement is encouraging companies to cut workers' hours. The White House said in statement there is no evidence the law has caused a broad shift to part-time work.

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2015/01/08/obstructionist-white-house-threatens-veto-of-40-hr-work-week/?subscriber=1

This proposed amendment to the ACA is a part of the Republican and far right conscious campaign in the congress to dismantle Obamacare entirely and completely.

When the president vetoes this enactment he will be affirmatively preserving and protecting the ACA against Republican and other rightist attempts to scuttle Obamacare completely and entirely.

Presidential veto authority and power are provided in the Constitution as an integral part of the balance of powers and the system of checks and balances among the congress, the president, the supreme court. Almost every American knows this. Which means that on this issue Republicans in the congress can't get away with claiming Prez Obama is acting outside of his constitutional authority and remit.

Congress is going to have to override or eat its vetoed enactments. It is part of the system of checks and balances and of the separation of equal powers in Washington.

The fact is however that Prez Obama has the fewest vetoes of any president over the past 130 years. Barack Obama has on average used his veto power once in every 435 days .....the average of presidents since 1881 is a veto once every 20 days. The full chart is at the link.....

Obama the Most Veto-Shy President Since James Garfield

· Democrat Franklin Roosevelt vetoed one bill every 7 days

· Republican Teddy Roosevelt vetoed one bill every 33 days

· Republican William McKinley vetoed one bill every 39 days

· Republican Calvin Coolidge vetoed one bill every 41 days

· Democrat John Kennedy vetoed one bill every 49 days

· Democrat Lyndon Johnson vetoed one bill every 63 days

· Republican Warren Harding vetoed one bill every 147 days

(Note: Democrat Jimmy Carter vetoed one bill every 47 days, however the GOP took control of the Senate for the last 18 days of his administration after the 1980 election).

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2011/06/obama_the_most_veto-shy_presid.php

Edited January 9, 2015 by Publicus

[Exsexyman]

I have not looked, but I bet FOX is going bonkers over the 2 vetoes.

Saint Reagan had 78 vetos and Obama has 2.

FOX news will be at war with reality if you turn on the TV I bet.

Heaven forbid i hold no brief for Fox News, but you clearly are obsessed. The irony of you accusing other posters of having "FOX on the brain" has clearly passed you by. Time for you to 'fess up' i reckon. What happened, did Bill o Reilly sha g your missus or something?

[Ulysses G.]

I have not looked, but I bet FOX is going bonkers over the 2 vetoes.

You are wrong yet again. The vetoes are expected and are measures that demonstrate bipartisan support. The Republicans are proving exactly who has actually been saying NO all this time, now that Harry Reid can't block bills from a vote.

[Publicus]

A poster has Harry Reid on the brain.

Regardless, Republicans in congress want to dismantle Obamacare, promote the Keystone XL pipeline, stop the president's executive action on immigration, deny climate change and science, end the separation of church and state, tell France to kick out its Muslims.....and so on.....

Sen Harry Reid was an effective majority leader while Sen McConnell as minority leader specialized in plaintiff speechmaking.

Republican leaders in congress don't have a stellar record. Senate minority leader Bob Dole got wiped out for president in the 1996 election while Newt Gingrich got dumped as speaker of the House for a bushel basket of fog named Dennis Hastert who had been a high school wrestling coach.

McConnell is going to have to carry the whole congress on his back given that Speaker John Beohner is a completely ineffective leader and the worst speaker the House has had to endure in a very long time.....perhaps ever.

McConnell has yet to prove himself as new senate majority leader.

McConnell needs to show for instance he can get the two-thirds of senators he will need to successfully override the president's vetoes. We haven't had any new legislation yet or any vetoes, so no one knows. By all headcounts up to now, however, he does not have the votes to override any of several possible vetoes.

This means Sen McConnell is proceeding despite not being able to offer reasonable assurances he can see his legislative program through to its successful conclusion. McConnell is already demonstrating he cannot produce legislation that the president can sign without a veto, legislation McConnell and the president could reach some middle ground on. McConnell's approach is all or nothing.

McConnell is scheduling bills that the White House has made clear it cannot accept in their present form that Democrats in congress will be unable to amend. Sen McConnell is not off to an encouraging start as the new majority leader of the Senate.

[chuckd]

<snip>

The fact is however that Prez Obama has the fewest vetoes of any president over the past 130 years. Barack Obama has on average used his veto power once in every 435 days .....the average of presidents since 1881 is a veto once every 20 days. The full chart is at the link.....

Let's look at one possible reason Obama has this distinction.

As you know the President is required only to act on those Bills which have been approved by both Houses of Congress in a final form, signed out by both the Speaker of the House and the Senate President, and presented to the President for his signature.

The President then has ten days to either sign the bill or veto it by returning it unsigned. Failing to sign any piece of legislation within the ten days will result in either a veto or an approval, depending on the status of Congress.

With those thoughts in mind, we can look at the legislative actions during the past six years.

1. The 111th Congress (2009-2010) had a Democratic majority Senate and Democratic majority House of Representatives.

No legislation got to the President without the approval of both Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), Senate Majority Leader, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Both Democratic Party leaders were in lock-step with the agenda of the President so no controversial bills would have been or were presented to him.

2. The 112th Congress (2011-2012) had a Democratic majority Senate and Republican led House of Representatives.

During this Congress, the Republicans passed many bills that reached the Senate, where they died from inaction. Senator Reid set the schedule for the Senate and simply refused to advance bills he or the President disagreed with.

3. The 113th Congress (2013-2014) had a Democratic majority Senate and Republican led House of Representatives.

The 113th Congress followed the same pattern as the 112th with no real controversial bills being presented to the President for his signature.

One should only have to look at who was forwarding bills to the President to realize where the actual veto process was taking place. The Senate Majority Leader has been managing the veto process during the last six years.

I seriously doubt we will have this same conversation two years from now.

I will be very surprised if President Obama's veto total isn't above and beyond his predecessor's at the end.

[chuckd]

I have not looked, but I bet FOX is going bonkers over the 2 vetoes.

Saint Reagan had 78 vetos and Obama has 2.

FOX news will be at war with reality if you turn on the TV I bet.

Perhaps you should have looked before you made your ignorant post

----------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------

From Wikipedia:

Barack Obama

Main article: Barack Obama

December 30, 2009: Vetoed H.J.Res. 64, Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2010, and for other purposes. Override attempt failed in House, 143-245, 1 present.[37]

October 7, 2010: Vetoed H.R. 3808, the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010. Override attempt failed in House, 185-235 (280 required).[38]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes

[Publicus]

<snip>

The fact is however that Prez Obama has the fewest vetoes of any president over the past 130 years. Barack Obama has on average used his veto power once in every 435 days .....the average of presidents since 1881 is a veto once every 20 days. The full chart is at the link.....

Let's look at one possible reason Obama has this distinction.

As you know the President is required only to act on those Bills which have been approved by both Houses of Congress in a final form, signed out by both the Speaker of the House and the Senate President, and presented to the President for his signature.

The President then has ten days to either sign the bill or veto it by returning it unsigned. Failing to sign any piece of legislation within the ten days will result in either a veto or an approval, depending on the status of Congress.

With those thoughts in mind, we can look at the legislative actions during the past six years.

1. The 111th Congress (2009-2010) had a Democratic majority Senate and Democratic majority House of Representatives.

No legislation got to the President without the approval of both Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), Senate Majority Leader, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Both Democratic Party leaders were in lock-step with the agenda of the President so no controversial bills would have been or were presented to him.

2. The 112th Congress (2011-2012) had a Democratic majority Senate and Republican led House of Representatives.

During this Congress, the Republicans passed many bills that reached the Senate, where they died from inaction. Senator Reid set the schedule for the Senate and simply refused to advance bills he or the President disagreed with.

3. The 113th Congress (2013-2014) had a Democratic majority Senate and Republican led House of Representatives.

The 113th Congress followed the same pattern as the 112th with no real controversial bills being presented to the President for his signature.

One should only have to look at who was forwarding bills to the President to realize where the actual veto process was taking place. The Senate Majority Leader has been managing the veto process during the last six years.

I seriously doubt we will have this same conversation two years from now.

I will be very surprised if President Obama's veto total isn't above and beyond his predecessor's at the end.

Nice little piece.....I'm sure someone somewhere would be interested in it as being inconsequential-and-immaterial-to-anything bedtime reading.

Now that I've in fact read it, g'nite....

[BoneRanger]

I have not looked, but I bet FOX is going bonkers over the 2 vetoes.

Saint Reagan had 78 vetos and Obama has 2.

FOX news will be at war with reality if you turn on the TV I bet.

Perhaps you should have looked before you made your ignorant post

----------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------

From Wikipedia:

Barack Obama

Main article: Barack Obama

December 30, 2009: Vetoed H.J.Res. 64, Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2010, and for other purposes. Override attempt failed in House, 143-245, 1 present.[37]

October 7, 2010: Vetoed H.R. 3808, the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010. Override attempt failed in House, 185-235 (280 required).[38]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes

Wikipedia? Just about anybody can log in there and change things. I'll bet there are FOX viewers logging in there all the time changing data.

OK. Lets assume it good info. I'll let you add 2.

Saint Reagan had 78 vetoes.

Obama 4.

[chuckd]

I have not looked, but I bet FOX is going bonkers over the 2 vetoes.

Saint Reagan had 78 vetos and Obama has 2.

FOX news will be at war with reality if you turn on the TV I bet.

Heaven forbid i hold no brief for Fox News, but you clearly are obsessed. The irony of you accusing other posters of having "FOX on the brain" has clearly passed you by. Time for you to 'fess up' i reckon. What happened, did Bill o Reilly sha g your missus or something?

ESM:

You have hit the proverbial nail on the proverbial head.

Cheers

[chuckd]

I have not looked, but I bet FOX is going bonkers over the 2 vetoes.

Saint Reagan had 78 vetos and Obama has 2.

FOX news will be at war with reality if you turn on the TV I bet.

Perhaps you should have looked before you made your ignorant post

----------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------

From Wikipedia:

Barack Obama

Main article: Barack Obama

December 30, 2009: Vetoed H.J.Res. 64, Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2010, and for other purposes. Override attempt failed in House, 143-245, 1 present.[37]

October 7, 2010: Vetoed H.R. 3808, the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010. Override attempt failed in House, 185-235 (280 required).[38]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes

Wikipedia? Just about anybody can log in there and change things. I'll bet there are FOX viewers logging in there all the time changing data.

OK. Lets assume it good info. I'll let you add 2.

Saint Reagan had 78 vetoes.

Obama 4.

Well, you are into your second week as a member and you still haven't learned very much.

The link I provided gave you the ONLY TWO vetoes Obama has performed. Why do you feel the need to add another two?

Try this link if you have any doubts about the Wikipedia link I provided.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/Legislation/Vetoes/ObamaBH.htm

It is the US Senate web site.

In the future you might want to do a little research before making a complete fool of yourself.

[tomwct]

The Supreme Court will handle the ObamaCare Fraud before June! I am one of those Voters who did not buy the Socialist Fraud on ObamaCare! Only people who voted for ObamaCare

bought their Fraud. No Republicans Voted for ObamaCare! Now Socialist Democrats and Republicans want to change ObamaCare just to create some full-time jobs with good salaries before

the June ruling! Americans now watch FoxNews (68%) for their real news and not the other Cartoon Media, such as, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, and CNN!!! Sit back and watch the next six (6) months

in America! No more Harry Reed blocking legislation! Obama will need to Veto or not sign the legislation, which most of us expect happening due to his Ideology!

[beechguy]

I have not looked, but I bet FOX is going bonkers over the 2 vetoes.

Saint Reagan had 78 vetos and Obama has 2.

FOX news will be at war with reality if you turn on the TV I bet.

I still think you have them mixed up with MSNBC. With a line up like Al Sharpton, Ed Schultz, and Chris "I have an Obama tingle" Matthews, MSNBC seems to be the ones going after the ignorant and uneducated.

[metisdead]

The childish usage of changing the meanings of different political parties or news sources to stir up other posters emotions is simply trolling and in violation of forum rules:

9) You will not post inflammatory messages on the forum, or attempt to disrupt discussions to upset its participants, or trolling. Trolling can be defined as the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet by posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

Some post in violation of the above have been removed.

[mrwebb8825]

Spend the same amount of money as the pipeline by building a new Canadian/American joint venture refinery on the border near the oil and those temp jobs can become perminant. It would also reduce the spillage factor as there would be a very minimal distance of transportation required.

How do the refined products reach their destination from the northern refineries?

Surely you are not suggesting the refined oil would be consumed in the local area of the refinery.

The Keystone pipeline is planned to connect with existing pipelines in Nebraska from the North Dakota Bakken oil field.

The proposed Keystone XL Pipeline (Phase IV), which would essentially duplicate the Phase I pipeline between Hardisty, Alberta, and Steele City, Nebraska, with a shorter route and a larger-diameter pipe. It would run through Baker, Montana, where American-produced light crude oil from the Williston Basin (Bakken formation) of Montana and North Dakota would be added^[7] to the Keystone's current throughput of synthetic crude oil (syncrude) and diluted bitumen (dilbit) from the oil sands of Canada.

The Keystone XL proposal faces criticism from environmentalists and a minority of the members of the United States Congress. In January 2012, President Barack Obama rejected the application amid protests about the pipeline's impact on Nebraska's environmentally sensitive Sand Hills region.^[13]TransCanada Corporation changed the original proposed route of Keystone XL to minimize "disturbance of land, water resources and special areas"; the new route was approved by Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman in January 2013. On April 18, 2014 the Obama administration announced that the review of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline has been extended indefinitely, pending the result of a legal challenge to a Nebraska pipeline siting law that could change the route. The challenge has been taken up by the Nebraska Supreme Court.

[Chicog]

The Keystone pipeline will also carry the oil coming from the Bakken shale oil field in North Dakota, as well as the Pennsylvania oil, to the refineries in Texas and the Gulf Coast.

It is now being transported by rail across the US and it is traveling right through the middle of densely populated areas.

Besides the safety feature, the pipeline is expected to create up to 20,000 jobs during its construction period of over two years, plus an unknown number of peripheral businesses and jobs for the ongoing oil production.

This pipeline is considerably more than a Canadian venture.

You plucked that number from the air didn't you?

Many proponents, like TransCanada CEO Russ Girling, say the project will create 42,000 jobs. Girling said these jobs would be "ongoing, enduring," and we rated that claim False.

The State Department report does puts the total number of jobs at 42,100 -- but the definition of a job in this sense is a position filled for one year. This total reflects both jobs created directly as a result of construction and manufacturing for the pipeline -- about 3,900 annual positions over two years -- as well as spin-off jobs supported by construction workers who purchase materials for the project or spend their wages in the economy. Much of the construction work would come in four- or or eight-month stretches.

House Speaker Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, said "The nearly six-year delay in approving Keystone is costing Americans more than 100,000 jobs." He was citing a study that experts said was flawed and that TransCanada, said was "no longer relevant." We rated that statement False.

In saying the number of jobs the project would create are insignificant, Obama said the "most realistic estimates… are maybe 2,000 jobs during the construction of the pipeline." Based on the State Department report, we also rated that claim False.

The construction phase, though, is expected to take only one to two years. After construction, the pipeline would employ a lesser number, primarily for maintenance. The total number of long-term jobs: about 50.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/jan/09/3-key-keystone-xl-questions-answered/

This project primarily benefits the Canadians and those Republican backers who have significant interests in Alberta oil.

It's pretty poor to try and paint it otherwise.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Chicog