Statistics on US Presidents and Executive Orders

[JakeStarkey]

A thesis and an opinion, "I don't care how many EO's a President signs.. it's what those EO's do and effect they have on the country and our rights that matters.", without facts to turn them in an argument.

 

[Pogo]

Well, there goes the "Obama as dictator" meme.

Aww. I'm gonna miss it.

::snif::

 

[Pogo]

But you can't blame it all on Franklin D Roosevelt. His time in office was at a time when the world was grappling with World War 2. And America was fighting one of the toughest battles in history, 2 major fronts at the same time (in Europe against Nazis and in the Pacific against Japs).

In that chaotic state of a country I mean it's no surprise with that high number of EOs.

That, and he also had just over twelve years in office, more than any other POTUS.

Perhaps a graph broken down by each Administration (i.e. every 4 years) would be less weighted?
Gerald Ford for instance has more EOs in his 2 1/2 years than Richard Nixon in 5 1/2. More than twice Nixon's rate.

I'm trying to remember the protestations over Gerald Ford as Dictator. I'm coming up blank.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I went on the White House website and found it very hard to get at how many Executive Orders he's done. You have to go through the site and count them. What I discovered is he's done a ton of presidential actions. 14 of them in January. 4 of them yesterday

The link is already in the OP. They are all there.

 

[mudwhistle]

No, that's not moving the goalposts, it's simply using logic.

One cannot just throw out a bunch of meaningless statistics without getting into the details.

Part of the reason that FDR used executive orders so much is because we had declared war which gave him powers that he normally wouldn't have.

However, Obama seems to think that he has powers that don't exist. He swore an oath to uphold the constitution yet he skirts around it at every opportunity. He thinks Democracy is a messy pain in the butt and he thinks that laws are just something to hold him back. Thus he doesn't believe in ether where his ideology is concerned. Not to mention the fact that he doesn't like going about ruling inside the constitution because it means work is involved, and he's never been about hard work.

Your opinion of all that, yes. BHO's ideology is that of a corporatist, yes. I doubt he believes our system "is a messy pain in the butt" or avoids "ruling inside the constitution".

That is a far right wing opinion on your part and does not, in my opinion, meet the actual facts.

All we have to base this belief off is his words and his actions.

They prove this is his mindset.

 

[Statistikhengst]

A thesis and an opinion, "I don't care how many EO's a President signs.. it's what those EO's do and effect they have on the country and our rights that matters.", without facts to turn them in an argument.

[MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]

There is a detail I deliberately left out of the OP, namely, that a great many EO come right at the beginning of a presidential term and again at the end. Why? Because in the case of change of Party, a president likes to give some EOs at the end, and the incoming president often negates them, sets them out of action. This happened with every President in my memory. If fact, Bush 43 made a point of going into the oval office on January 20th after the swearing in and his speech to sign a slew of EOs, many of which just voided out some of Bill Clinton's EO's from just a number of days before. Obama did pretty much the same thing at his inauguration. This has, as far as I can tell, become somewhat of a fixture in US-American politics, for a standing EO remains in effect until a President negates it with another EO.

 

[mudwhistle]

There's always a cover story for what Obama does.

He says he has a pen yet the left claims he hasn't signed all that many Executive Orders, yet he's signed hundreds upon hundreds of presidential actions.

He causes 6 million people to lose their insurance and the excuse is that all of those policies were lousy policies.

It's all horseshit. Just a bunch of lies to cover for his lack of leadership, or coverup the damage he's doing.

All presidents sign hundreds upon hundreds of presidential actions: that's what presidents do.

Those six million folks can get better insurance, many of them for cheaper premiums.

Sorry, but claiming that all of those policies sucked is ridiculous. Not to mention that he lied about them being able to keep them. Fact is you really don't know anything. You're just repeating what Obama apologists said.

Those policies didn't fit his idea of what a good policy was. Some of them were catastrophic coverage, which are cheaper than any policy Obamacare offers. Some of them covered cancer patients but didn't provide prenatal care for males.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sorry, but claiming those policies did not suck is ridiculous.

You, Mud, are just repeating what far right wing weirdists are saying.

 

[mudwhistle]

A thesis and an opinion, "I don't care how many EO's a President signs.. it's what those EO's do and effect they have on the country and our rights that matters.", without facts to turn them in an argument.

[MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]

There is a detail I deliberately left out of the OP, namely, that a great many EO come right at the beginning of a presidential term and again at the end. Why? Because in the case of change of Party, a president likes to give some EOs at the end, and the incoming president often negates them, sets them out of action. This happened with every President in my memory. If fact, Bush 43 made a point of going into the oval office on January 20th after the swearing in and his speech to sign a slew of EOs, many of which just voided out some of Bill Clinton's EO's from just a number of days before. Obama did pretty much the same thing at his inauguration. This has, as far as I can tell, become somewhat of a fixture in US-American politics, for a standing EO remains in effect until a President negates it with another EO.

Why is everyone only talking about EOs? They aren't the only means for a president to push his policies.

Besides, Obama said that he's about to start issuing more of them. Why are we only talking about the ones he's signed? What he did in the past is about to change. So basically it's irrelevant.

 

[Votto]

I think FDR proved that if you want to attain power, it is best to have economic collapse and war abroad. Then people will surrender their very souls to you and not blink.

We all see the next economic collapse being manufactured. As for war, that would be easy to start as well. Syria is on borrowed time as well is Iran.

 

[jillian]

.

The quantitative list is interesting.

I wonder what the qualitative looks like, a deeper dive into the magnitude of the EO's.

Quality over quantity, in other words.

.

the first EO baby bush signed was to cut off funds from any group working overseas that even mentioned reproductive choice.

pretty substantive.

or you could always go through the 3,000 signed by FDR.

or go through the almost 400 signed by reagan. the information is there if you want it.

the thing is though… the obama-deranged aren't yelling about the "qualitative" nature of the EO's. they are shrieking that this president is signing ANY EO's…… which fits with them saying that filling court vacancies is somehow "packing the court" and then refusing this president the right to appoint his own people… for no reason… other than they can't stand this president doing anything past presidents have done.

 

[mudwhistle]

This is a pattern.

Obama is about to do something stupid and stories come out about how someone else is doing it.

Or he is discovered doing something stupid and it's always a Bush program or something every other president did.

What if Obama came out and said he's going to start beating his meat in public. Then a story surfaces on ThinkProgress about how every other president beat their meat in public. We just didn't have stories of it in the media. Pretty soon every president is supposedly been beating their meat in public. Well, this is all news to us, but the media wouldn't lie. They always tell the unvarnished truth. They would never fib to cover up Obama's meat beating practices.

 

[mudwhistle]

For years Reagan wanted a line-item veto. Finally it was passed. Shortly after Clinton started using it, the SCOTUS decided it was unconstitutional.

Obamacare was unconstitutional and had to be rewritten by the Chief Justice to make it constitutional.

Now Obama has been applying the law any way he chooses, excluding friends and political donors from the damaging effects of Obamacare. He refuses to enforce immigration laws, even helps break it at times.

His threats to go around Congress are worrying, because it takes years to get anything to the SC, so any damage he does will be irreversible.

 

[BDBoop]

 

[Statistikhengst]

For years Reagan wanted a line-item veto. Finally it was passed. Shortly after Clinton started using it, the SCOTUS decided it was unconstitutional.

Obamacare was unconstitutional and had to be rewritten by the Chief Justice to make it constitutional.

Now Obama has been applying the law any way he chooses, excluding friends and political donors from the damaging effects of Obamacare. He refuses to enforce immigration laws, even helps break it at times.

His threats to go around Congress are worrying, because it takes years to get anything to the SC, so any damage he does will be irreversible.

This is, of course, a lie.

 

[Plasmaball]

Well, there goes the "Obama as dictator" meme.

it was never their to begin with. Only low functioning brain level people use it.

 

[Plasmaball]

If FDR was a tyrant then why does the left look up to him like they do?

Looking at your chart it is clear what the Progressive era has done to this country. Obama is but one of many. Luckily, conservatives have a greater voice than they did in the era of FDR. Back then FDR would have thrown us all in concentration camps. Then again, Obama could arrest us under the NDAA without trial. We could all just disappear now.

Tell me, are you suffering from a fever or a cold, or both? Or did you maybe just fall on your head?


Just in case you didn't notice, fuckface, FDR prosecuted the hardest war in our history against Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperialistic Japan to preserve our freedoms so that YOU could have the freedom to write such stupid shit. The very fact that you can write something THAT inane proves my point.

Damn, go see a doctor about that brain rash. But then again, in your case, it might be rabies.... so many rabid Righties out there these days.....

unless you were from Japan, then you got fucked in the ass hard.
But otherwise the man was a kind soul....in a wheelchair...dying for his country.....

 

[Plasmaball]

Well, there goes the "Obama as dictator" meme.

and that's all that matters to you...It's what Obama is using EO's for that's the problem...some of them are to ignore OUR LAWS

^^ low brains level proves the point.
Used dishwater has more value than the crap you post. Go back and post an opinion piece because those think for you.

 

[Plasmaball]

This is a pattern.

Obama is about to do something stupid and stories come out about how someone else is doing it.

Or he is discovered doing something stupid and it's always a Bush program or something every other president did.

What if Obama came out and said he's going to start beating his meat in public. Then a story surfaces on ThinkProgress about how every other president beat their meat in public. We just didn't have stories of it in the media. Pretty soon every president is supposedly been beating their meat in public. Well, this is all news to us, but the media wouldn't lie. They always tell the unvarnished truth. They would never fib to cover up Obama's meat beating practices.

no you moron, its because this is how its always been , and you dunderheads think this is some new sort of scheme only the left thought of when they got in the white house.

You take something quite normal and turn it into a conspiracy.

 

[The T]

For years Reagan wanted a line-item veto. Finally it was passed. Shortly after Clinton started using it, the SCOTUS decided it was unconstitutional.

Obamacare was unconstitutional and had to be rewritten by the Chief Justice to make it constitutional.

Now Obama has been applying the law any way he chooses, excluding friends and political donors from the damaging effects of Obamacare. He refuses to enforce immigration laws, even helps break it at times.

His threats to go around Congress are worrying, because it takes years to get anything to the SC, so any damage he does will be irreversible.

He has violated his oath, it's that simple. NO ONE has the balls to challenge him legally...and you have to ask yourself...WHY?