Obama’s plans lack details
Ann McFeatters, Special to the Gazette
Monday, March 2, 2009
President Obama has taken to heart the cheerleading aspect of his job. We have yet to see how his plans will work in real life.
His proposed budget is like a dazzling magical, mirrored box — reflecting what you want to see. It has money for health care. It promises an end to waste, fraud and abuse. It addresses climate change. The billions we spend each year on Iraq and Afghanistan are finally on the books.
But the (gulp) $3.55 trillion package Obama will send to Congress calls for deficit spending that may reach $2 trillion just for this year alone, even as he promises to cut the deficit in half in four years.
For the vexed middle-class, the budget proposes to make permanent the roughly $10-a-week cut in individual federal withholding in the stimulus package supposed to start in April. It also puts hundreds of billions of new taxes on the rich by phasing down the mortgage interest and charitable gift deductions for couples making more than $250,000 a year.
One hitch — nobody has seen details. Those are supposed to be unveiled (as in “all will be revealed”) in April.
We are mesmerized by the cadences in Obama’s speeches. His voice is reassuring and firm, even as he warns of tough times and tough choices.
But we don’t have enough information to assess his plans. He wants to spend $634 billion on a down payment to expand health care coverage, to be paid for by tax hikes on the rich of $318 billion over ten years and another $318 billion to be cut out of Medicare and Medicaid through smaller payments to managed care companies, prescription drug manufacturers and hospitals.
It defies the imagination to see how that is supposed to work when both programs are struggling and drug companies, hospitals and managed care are enormously powerful on Capitol Hill. The special-interest lobbyists are already lining up in the halls of Congress.
We understand that Obama has been in office little more than a month, and that the economic catastrophes and many problems he inherited would make most people despair. Nonetheless, this crisis is more than a year old and we have shelled out so much money (borrowed against future earnings) and we have seen so little, if anything, for it, that we can’t be faulted for complaining that it’s time to meet the devils lurking in the details.
Even as he promises America will emerge from what will be the deepest, longest recession since the Great Depression, Obama did not sugarcoat our problems. Nine million people can’t find fulltime jobs. Another 3.5 million people lost their jobs in the past 13 months. Millions can’t pay their bills and have lost their retirement savings. The capital markets are frozen.
Obama wants to invest in new energy sources and a more energy efficient America. He pledged to repair crumbling roads, bridges, and schools and expand broadband lines across the country. He says we will invest in innovation and equip thousands of schools, community colleges and universities with modern classrooms, labs and libraries. All health records will be computerized in five years.
He’ll make the military stronger and take care of our veterans. Companies that send jobs overseas will lose tax breaks. Wealthy farmers must lose subsidies. After imposing new caps on carbon emissions on users of fossil fuels to combat global warming, Obama proposes then to raise billions of dollars by selling permits to exceed those caps.
So many questions! So few answers!
Obama sought guidance from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s presidency. But the world moves faster; people are less patient.
The 100-days report card for new presidents was an arbitrary, cutesy contrivance, born in Washington, with little relevance for real America. This year that won’t be true. Enormous attention will be paid to the marks we all give Obama on or about April 30.
We’ll know the details of the budget. We’ll know if the markets stabilize, although the recession will last through 2009 well into 2010. We’ll know if Congress will help or hinder. And we’ll have a better idea if this new administration knows what it is doing or is just really good at rhetoric.
Ann McFeatters’ e-mail address is amcfeatters@nationalpress.com.
Happiness09 (anonymous) says...
There's an old saying "If it sounds too good to be true then it probably is"
March 2, 2009 at 4:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
His halving of the deficit reminds me of alot of going-out-of-business sales. 30% OFF EVERYTHING!!!! (But they jacked the price up 50% right before posting the 30% sale figures).
What part of FDR's guidance is he following? FDR's own Treasury Secretary admitted 6 YEARS into his presidency that it hadn't worked, it had only given them a mountain of debt. Good thing the world moves faster now.... maybe it will only be 3 years before it doesn't work.....
March 2, 2009 at 5:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
under_score (anonymous) says...
Would anyone like to bet that mrwho did not even graduate from high school? I've got $100 that says he did not.
I'm guessing most people who voted for Obama that are moderates and not left-wing nut jobs are having a really bad case of buyers remorse right about now.
March 3, 2009 at 3:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Well, there's honest criticism (which EVERY politician deserves, regardless of affiliation) - and then there's the childish name-calling, typical of left-wing hate that we've all seen so much of for the last 8 years.....
Gee, guess who started it on this thread..... (hint: It wasn't any of the "dumbass" or "idiot" republicans)..... talk about those that can dish it out but can't take it.... geesh.....
March 3, 2009 at 4:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
mrwho, you also forgot to brand everyone that doens't agree with you a racist. Just your friendly reminder.
March 3, 2009 at 4:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
You know what irks me when I read these posts about anything that has to do with the politics, is the fact that after all these years of so called "PARTY POLITICS", is the fact that everyone blames either the Republicans, the Independants, the Democrats,, the left, the right, the liberal, the conservatives, the moderates, etc. What everyone needs to realize is that the only way to fix the situation this country is in and return this country to some semblance of its former power, respect and greatness, is for everyone to work together in a by-partisan, non-greedy, non-corupt, fair, imparshial way, with caring, fairness, and impartialialty for everyone amd above all, " ACCOUNTABILITY" for their actions, stop the blame game and get to the business of saving this country and its people. If this means some people, businesses, corporations, banks, etc. will have to fail, then so be it. There is no way throwing good money after bad is going to accomplish anything over the long haul. Also if government regulation and control is what is needed to stop the greed that has run rampant for decades, then so be it.
Also if anyone thinks that this mess can be turned around or this country and its economy can be saved without some kind of government intervention, and I mean the right kind of government intervention, they are sadly mistaken.
The greedy " FAT CAT" profit minded investors of " WALL STREET " neither have the inclination nor desire to save anyone but themselves and there in, lies a big part of the problem, their entire interest is in take, take, take and then get out !
We gave the previous administrations a chance at running things and some of them did not do a very good job at doing it, the last administration did not do such a good job. Everyone deserves a chance to see what they can do or accomplish. As I stated in my above post this partisan politics game of blame and finger pointing has to stop, along with the imbedded corruption and greed prevailant in politics or this country is doomed to fail.
March 3, 2009 at 5:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
'We can only hope that he fails!"
That is about as unamerican as you can get there Rush. What is it they say? If you don't love it leave it? All partisanship aside, you should know better. Since your obviously a republican die hard right winger I have a question for you, go ahead wow me with your knowledge. Aside from tax cut( which have not worked), outline your plan. Because the one thing I have yet to hear from the right is just what is their plan, all I get read is criticism and theories that like some of Obama's have not worked in the past. i sit firmly in the independent party and I would love to hear conservative solutions to matters, problem is the great lack of them. So by all means expound please sir.
March 3, 2009 at 6:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"We gave the previous administrations a chance at running things and some of them did not do a very good job at doing it, the last administration did not do such a good job. Everyone deserves a chance to see what they can do or accomplish. As I stated in my above post this partisan politics game of blame and finger pointing has to stop, along with the imbedded corruption and greed prevailant in politics or this country is doomed to fail."
This, thank you. 2 months in and people here are ready to burn torches. This country will still be here in 4 years, and if its worse shape Obama will not be elected again, and if its in better, well i'm sure someone will bitch about anyways because of his political affiliation.
March 3, 2009 at 6:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I understand, and I agree in part - I don't like to hear wishing for Obama to fail. Wishing for our president to fail IS unAmerican. But, that is not exactly the gist of it. The full context is, that Obama is taking us down the road to socialism. And I, for one, do not want this great country to turn to socialism. In that respect, I hope that the socialism experiment fails. I feel that what Obama is doing IS Un-American. He is trying to fundamentally change our society in ways that we cannot simply undo by voting someone else into power in 4 years. What will they do with the who knows how many trillion $$ deficit? Are all the people that have gotten used to the government doing everything for them going to willingly be weaned off? Will any of you have anything left, after you help pay for my mortgage? (I don't have trouble now, but I'm thinking about blowing all my money in Vegas, being irresponsible is what pays the most nowadays, it seems).
So, if you listen to the full context of what Rush says, he does not want socialism to succeed. Nor do I. I don't know how to put that sentiment forward, however, without saying that I do not want what Obama is doing to this country to succeed.
I want him to continue to crack down on fat cat CEO's getting rich while Rome burns. Good for him. I support him 100% on that.
I want him to crack down on illegal immigration and seal our borders. Well, we've already extended free health care to illegal immigrant children. so he has failed me there.
I want him to find ways to keep jobs in this country, and do away with tax breaks for outsourcing. I'm hopeful there.
I do not want him to put our country down an irreversable path towards socialism. It appears he is doing that with frightening swiftness. In that respect, I do not want that to succeed.
The country may be here in for years, but will it be the USA? Or will it be the USSA (United Socialist States of America).
I'm sure there are plenty in this country who WANT socialism. To them, I have been, and remain, respectfully, fundamentally opposed. And if that is the goal of our president (and it appears to be) - then I am opposed to that succeeding. In that respect, I'm getting the feeling that it is OBAMA that is UnAmerican, not those that oppose his drive towards socialism.
Our founding fathers warned us. Their grand vision is about to come to an end, I fear. No, I don't mean USA in flames. I mean USA becomes USSA.
March 3, 2009 at 7:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
And mrwho, thank you for being an honest person and saying my bad. I've done it to - sometimes I let my emotions get the best of me (I have on here) - and write things I regret. I appreciate & respect your opinion - and when I get out of hand or say inappropriate things, please call me on it. I've apologized more than once on here..... :)
March 3, 2009 at 7:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justthefacts (anonymous) says...
A leader is there to lead. Part of leadership is listening to those who have chosen the leader to follow. In the absence of constructive information or instruction, the leader fails no matter who is there. The failure started with Bush I and has continued through all the others. Everyone wants to hear the rosy picture but not roll up their sleeves and pull themselves up by their own bootstraps so to speak.
I trust that at some point, common sense will prevail. The Republic has sustained itself through the checks and balances established by the founding fathers. We get the kind of governance we tolerate and allow. If things are not meeting your expectations you should be on your computer, your phone, your fax machine or your post office daily making sure every one of your elected officials knows your concerns. Party politics aside, the majority still rules. Unfortunately the majority often stays silent until it's too late. We can't afford to sit by and watch any president fail. John Kennedy was right. ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. It means a lot more than sitting back on your hindquarters and blogging about how much you do or don't like the current occupant of the White House.
Thanks for letting me vent.
March 3, 2009 at 8:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Speaking of 2 months and everyone is ready to burn torches, anyone remember back to 2000? The Supreme Court finally decided that it was illegal for Florida to break its own law (gosh - imagine that! OH the irony....). But..... sure heard about it for a long time. Sure were alot of burning torches that first year. Been 9 years now, still hear about it occasionally.
How quickly our selective memory forgets.....
March 3, 2009 at 8:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Well, justthefacts, you put forth some very good sentiments. But, if I may, for some people, blogging isn't merely "venting". It IS a form of making sure elected ofiicials hear our concerns. I am quite sure there are some things blogged here that make it to quite a few ears, elected officials among them. And, it is also a way of getting some truth out there, when our media obviously is biased, or our resident gazette editorial writer is incapable of impartiality. (I'm still waiting for that once-a-week conservative editorial column, Gazette staff). For instance, how many people here knew that it turned out the Palin didn't know Africa story was a hoax perpetrated by ..... well, lets just say it wasn't conservatives? Well, one network at least exposed it, but people that lean too far left view anything to the right of themselves as biased, so I realize lots of people never knew that. Just because 5 people may sit here & have a blogging discussion doesn't mean they are the only 5 in the universe that it reaches. I remember some things here even got picked up by other publications during the Somalian settlement center discussions.
Its interesting that you use phrases like "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps", and "ask what you can do for your country". Isn't the path we are being railroaded down more along the lines of "ask what your country can do for you"?
March 3, 2009 at 8:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Thanks, Observation, and very well said, mrwho.
Here's some more "Change We Can Believe In":
The Senate voted overwhelmingly to preserve thousands of earmarks in a $410 billion spending bill on Tuesday, brushing aside Sen. John McCain's claim that President Barack Obama and Congress are merely conducting business as usual in a time of economic hardship.
McCain's attempt to strip out an estimated 8,500 earmarks failed on a vote of 63-32. The Arizona senator's proposal also would have cut roughly $32 billion from the measure and kept spending at last year's levels in several federal agencies.
Last year's Republican presidential candidate said both he and Obama pledged during the campaign to "stop business as usual in Washington," and he quoted the president as having said he would go line by line to make sure money was spent wisely.
McCain's proposal drew the support of 30 Republicans and two Democrats, and the outcome reflected the enduring value of earmarks to lawmakers. While polls routinely show these pet projects to be unpopular, local governments and constituents often covet them.
The maneuvering came on legislation to assure continued funding for several federal agencies past March 6. At $410 billion, the bill represents an 8 percent increase over last year's spending levels, more than double the rate of inflation.
Republicans made two other attempts during the day to reduce spending in the bill, but failed both times.
While Republican opposition in the House focused more on the bill's overall spending, McCain and allies turned the Senate spotlight squarely on earmarks.
"How does anyone justify some of these earmarks: $1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa; $2 million 'for the promotion of astronomy' in Hawaii; $6.6 million for termite research in New Orleans; $2.1 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in New York," he said.
He also noted the legislation includes 14 earmarks requested by lawmakers for projects sought by PMA Group, a lobbying company at the center of a federal corruption investigation.
Taxpayers for Common Sense estimates the legislation contains 8,570 disclosed earmarks worth $7.7 billion. House Democrats declined to provide an estimate of the number of pet projects in the bill, and put their cost at $3.8 billion.
March 3, 2009 at 11:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"Speaking of 2 months and everyone is ready to burn torches, anyone remember back to 2000? The Supreme Court finally decided that it was illegal for Florida to break its own law (gosh - imagine that! OH the irony....). But..... sure heard about it for a long time. Sure were alot of burning torches that first year. Been 9 years now, still hear about it occasionally.
How quickly our selective memory forgets....."
Comparing that election to this last one is a moot point. There is room for argument in an election where the margin was as close it was, it was razor thin, the last election was a landslide. Its a different ballgame when you have a vast majority vs. the closest presidential election in recent times. At the end of Obama's term if he does poorly, he'll be gone. Despite the fact that I think Bush is a failure I never wished him to fail, some did and that was equally despicable.
I return to what Is said though, instead of trying to pick apart policy I want to see the Republicans come up with some kind of alternative, ideas, something other than just whine. I am really worried about the party to be honest, having the republican chairman apologizing to a radio jockey is pathetic, its beyond me how these media personalities carry more weight than the leaders of the party, its proof positive just how sad of a state the party is in.
March 4, 2009 at 12:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"Here's some more "Change We Can Believe In":
The Senate voted overwhelmingly to preserve thousands of earmarks in a $410 billion spending bill on Tuesday, brushing aside Sen. John McCain's claim that President Barack Obama and Congress are merely conducting business as usual in a time of economic hardship.
McCain's attempt to strip out an estimated 8,500 earmarks failed on a vote of 63-32. The Arizona senator's proposal also would have cut roughly $32 billion from the measure and kept spending at last year's levels in several federal agencies.
Last year's Republican presidential candidate said both he and Obama pledged during the campaign to "stop business as usual in Washington," and he quoted the president as having said he would go line by line to make sure money was spent wisely.
McCain's proposal drew the support of 30 Republicans and two Democrats, and the outcome reflected the enduring value of earmarks to lawmakers. While polls routinely show these pet projects to be unpopular, local governments and constituents often covet them.
The maneuvering came on legislation to assure continued funding for several federal agencies past March 6. At $410 billion, the bill represents an 8 percent increase over last year's spending levels, more than double the rate of inflation.
Republicans made two other attempts during the day to reduce spending in the bill, but failed both times.
While Republican opposition in the House focused more on the bill's overall spending, McCain and allies turned the Senate spotlight squarely on earmarks.
"How does anyone justify some of these earmarks: $1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa; $2 million 'for the promotion of astronomy' in Hawaii; $6.6 million for termite research in New Orleans; $2.1 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in New York," he said.
He also noted the legislation includes 14 earmarks requested by lawmakers for projects sought by PMA Group, a lobbying company at the center of a federal corruption investigation.
Taxpayers for Common Sense estimates the legislation contains 8,570 disclosed earmarks worth $7.7 billion. House Democrats declined to provide an estimate of the number of pet projects in the bill, and put their cost at $3.8 billion."
______________________________________________________
Those of us that take the time to read and reply with intelligent responses will in fact read hypertext links, walls of text on this forum tend to get disregarded more from what I have witnessed. But to be fair, I agree with what John McCain is doing, I would also point out that there are a great many earmarks in that bill that are for republicans, would love to see them take an almost united stand on this as they did on the stimulus. Would make a great case for and example for conservatives.
March 4, 2009 at 12:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
President Obama claimed during his candidacy that he would go "line by line" thru things to make sure money was spent wisely.
The current omnibus bill listed above contains 122 "double-dip" spending provisions. Accounts and programs that will receive billions from the recently-passed $787 billion stimulus bill are set to receive billions more in funding from the omnibus bill.
An "almost united stand" does absolutely nothing in the House, and in the Senate, as we have seen, it only takes 2 or 3 to "break ranks" and it is done. So what, exactly, is the point of "an ALMOST united stand"? They've tried, and the response when they do from Miss-lets-all-work-together-in-a-bipartisan-fashion Pelosi (and I quote) "we won the election, we write the bill".
The excuse is, this bill is a holdover from last year. Why does that matter? What is wrong with starting now? Or better yet, back on Jan 20th? Do we need to reinstate Bush for 1 day to sign the bill? Or is it now our current president's responsibility? Which pres will we blame all this pork on? Could we possibly push it back even farther, maybe to Carter or Nixon? LOL
Just how long do I have to wait before I can complain? Or does it matter on the closeness of the election, as you suggested? Or is it the magnitude of the lie that matters? Is it 1 month for every percentage spread in the election? If it had been 51-49 would I have gotten to complain earlier? Or if it had been 70-30 would I be required to wait until next year?
Goodoleboy, posters in the past have replied that they very rarely take the time to follow links - therefore, sometimes I simply put the text. Sorry if that annoys you, but if I may make a suggestion - if you want to reply to an especially long post, it is not necessary to duplicate the ENTIRE text.
March 4, 2009 at 1:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
You view it as picking apart policy & whining, but that IS the policy. Complaining about pork is stating that I think pork needs to be cut out. Complaining that nobody was allowed to read the bill means I believe in a policy where lawmakers are given time to actually read things before they vote on them. Complaining about spending is saying that my policy is to have some restraint on spending. Complaining about Nancy Pelosi is stating my policy that everyone in her district that votes for her needs a lobotomy.
There. I've just stated my policies clearly and concisely. You view it as wining, I view it as alternative policy. The only question is - how big a microscope will the surgeons need to find the brains of the Pelosi voters? LOL
March 4, 2009 at 1:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Your missing the point, the point is that if if republicans want to complain then fine, I can deal with that, and even listen to it. What they are not doing is presenting viable solutions to the things they complain about other than 'don't spend". That is the issue. The current bill reeks of earmarks on both sides of the isle, it is "business as usual" not gonna deny that, but its business as usual for both sides, a problem to be sure. Lets look hard at the stimulus though, why did Bush not map something out with his party before he left, a blueprint, why was it there were almost no solutions presented besides tax cuts? It was all a huge bitch fest. All I ask is that the conservative party give me some rebuttal every now and then and some examples of what they would do to handle things, not just complain. Until someone grows some balls and leads that party it will sink further and further with personalities like Limbaugh and Coulter at the forefront, talk about a circus........
Far as your comment on time to complain, its your right and I can respect that, but right now all we can do is speculate, you nor I have any concrete proof if our complaints or faith is valid. I can tell you this, its gonna take longer than 2 months for policy to take effect, you and i both know that, to be honest I won't start getting over judgmental for a year or so because it will be at least that long before this administrations policies really take hold, and that is being generous. I gave Bush a fair shot, everyone did, his approval rating were very high early on, but he failed. Time will tell if the same will hold true for Obama, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now and judging from public opinion I am in the large majority on that.
PS If this darn forum had better tools to work with I could quote only what I needed and as it stands now though its easier to quote the whole thing than snag bits and pieces from a wall of text, do what you like man, just saying for me personally its a lot easier to read an article on the page it was listed at and not in these cramped forums. to each their own sir.
March 4, 2009 at 3:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
EsqEB (anonymous) says...
Add up the cost of the was in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, and the cost of Katrina and guess what? It does equal what Obama spent in his first month in office.
March 4, 2009 at 6:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
under_score (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy, the conservative position on fixing the economy is to cut taxes across the board. Consumer spending accounts for 2/3 of the economy. If people have more money in their pockets they will be more likely to spend it. When they spend it they spend it on goods and services which drives greater demand for those goods and services. Greater demand for those goods and services drives the need to create more jobs to produce those goods and provide those services. These newly created jobs producing those goods and providing those services creates another group of people with money to spend on additional goods and services. Insert endless loop here.
This is a simplified explanation but it is in fact a very simple concept. Think of it on an individual basis. When you get a raise at work what do you do with the money? Some of it goes to taxes, some of it you save, and the rest you spend. If less goes to taxes then you have more left over to save and spend. A tax cut is the same thing as giving every working person a raise.
The business world operates in much the same matter. If they have more money they will ultimately create more jobs.
March 4, 2009 at 7:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alfalfa (anonymous) says...
I don't see a point in lambasting one party and not the other because they have all led us to this point, and most people went along willingly. I do not want Mr Obama to fail, but I think he will and very miserably at that. He seems to be a very smart man, with absolutely no business sense what so ever.
There was no reason everything had to be bundled into one big bill that no one even had the time to read before it was voted on. Since it appears much of that money will not be available for sometime, if some emergency measure had to be enacted it certainly could have been for less money. I won't say government intervention is not called for, but I think it has to be well thought out, and nobody can say with honesty this has been well thought out.
I cannot see how anything that has been done so far is dealing with the root causes of our current financial crisis. AIG seems to be a perfect example, their losses were broken down by the second on the news a few days ago, something like $450000 per second. If a company is losing money at that rate, is there any realistic hope that simply adding more money is going to cure anything? During this interim period, between bailouts, what has the executive compensation for AIGs top brass been, and, exactly what is appropriate compensation for leading a company into losses approaching a half million a second(even a half million and hour if I misheard)??
Obama needs to get out of DC and into the real world and see what makes business work. He needs to watch an oil well being drilled, help milk some cows and plant some corn, pump gas at a small town gas station and look at the books. He actually needs to look at the books of alot of small and large businesses and see where the money goes, just how much money a businessman has to invest to make a buck back. He should have done that before he was elected President. Then he needs to consider how each of his plans and policies are going to impact the people who actually make things happen in this nation.
March 4, 2009 at 8:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
under_score (anonymous) says...
Obama is a very smart guy who is using the current crisis, or percieved crisis, and promoting his agenda in a hurry while people are scared. He was the most liberal member of congress during his short time there and that is how he's governing as president. It's funny to now see moderates confused as to how far left his agenda is. He may have campainged as a centrist but if you looked even mildly past his words you found a socialist. Good or bad that is what he is and what he promotes.
March 4, 2009 at 9:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
There IS a reason everything had to be passed without being read first. There is, as under_score says, an agenda - and it's not always the agenda people thought they were voting for, IMO. But, I get the sense here, we are supposed to sit on our hands for awhile. I guess, for instance, if next month they strike down the 2nd amendment, and take everyone's guns away, we are supposed to give it at least a 6 month period before we complain, because of the spread of the election - LOL. (No, not really all that funny).
March 4, 2009 at 10:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Comparing repealing a 200+year old constitutional right vs. a bill is not even remotely fair, there is no comparison, it is silly. Enacting policy takes time, I don't see how you can compare enacting economic policy to taking away a right.
Spread of the election does have merit, when an election comes down to one county with one of the candidates brothers as the governor people will question that outcome, some till do. There are 0 questions that Obama won the race, and as I said some still do wonder about the 2000 election, and rightfully so, it was close enough to make those assertions.
Tax breaks do not work, they did not work during the Bush administration and it is questionable whether they worked during the Reagan era. With a global economy I don't see how trickle down economics has a chance at all. Again to my point, the republicans have been getting trounced in every election because they cannot implement new and better ways of resolving issues, its back to well all the time whether is works or not.
March 4, 2009 at 3:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
How about the conservative view of increasing exports and decreasing imports? Would that be a viable plan to you, goodoleboy? You keep saying there are no suggestions made, but this is just one that I've seen on here. We don't have fair trade agreements--how about getting some of those in play so our income at least equals our spending internationally? It would be a huge start--heck, we could maybe even tip the scales a bit in our favor. That would require jobs to produce what the other countries are to purchase from us. Maybe pair that up with a small tax break. Give tax incentives for production companies to build profit sharing with employees rather than outsource and tax them hard if they outsource. Close up the biggest tax loopholes in outsourcing that make it so profitable. The list goes on, but it's kind of boring and when you look closely, it means Americans have to imagine doing without for a few years---can you imagine not having dumpsters filled with shoes made in China that are falling apart within days of purchase? Sounds good to me, but many don't like the idea of getting rid of our disposable materialism.
March 4, 2009 at 4:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
It's comical how every single argument is "not fair". LOL
I have plenty of rights - I have the right to expect that my government does not lie to me, does not spend my money foolishly, wastefully, and that it upholds the constitution. I have a right to complain about corruption, misuse, and deception, and it shouldn't matter what the election spread was, or if it happens 1 second after inauguration. To sit around and say someone deserves more slack, and that we need to turn the other cheek and look the other way while we are bamboozled for a longer period of time, just because the election spread was greater, is perhaps one of the silliest things I have ever heard.
Well, exactly what do you base your claim that the tax breaks did not work?
Every study/statistic I've seen that shows we recovered from the double whammy of the recession that Bush inherited, plus 9/11, attributes much of the success to tax breaks. But, those are only economists, perhaps we shouldn't listen to them. Do you realize our economy grew at a good clip from 2001 to 2004? Or is is just because it went south after that that the breaks didn't work? I guess since Clinton left office in the middle of a recession, then it is fair to say his policies did not work? I'd like to see you tell your theories to a group of economists (and I don't mean far-left ones). Sensible ones that look at history, stick with facts and so forth. Should be interesting. If tax breaks do not work....... then why is Obama touting them? Are you saying it is his INTENT to tank our economy?
March 4, 2009 at 7:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
I'll gladly link my facts tomorrow on how the economy faltered from 2001-2004, I have great bookmark on the data from that period. It was nowhere near what it should have been.
About the other all I have to say is this, Clinton left us with a massive surplus, sure he had the .com boom but Bush also had the housing boom. Both had massive periods of economic growth, so given that why did we lose so much money and why is so damn expensive to live here? Why did these tax cuts not trickle into jobs here? If the republicans were not clamoring for tax breaks then there would be next to none, I am sad he appeased them. Lets do look at facts, by all means, I know we were in damn good shape in 2000, and where are we now? Lets just start another war we can't pay for and not worry about it.....
March 5, 2009 at 12:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on March 4, 2009 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How about the conservative view of increasing exports and decreasing imports? Would that be a viable plan to you, goodoleboy?
Yes this is a start, show me a conservative that will run with this as a platform for the White House, and keep me updated. To date I have seen not one conservative promoting this on a national level.
March 5, 2009 at 12:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"It's comical how every single argument is "not fair". LOL"
fair has 0 to with it, relatively for sure
March 5, 2009 at 12:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Don't believe me listen to Reagan's former political director.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/0...
March 5, 2009 at 7:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
"Clinton left us with a massive surplus"
Does what our government is doing now look like what the government did during the Clinton years?
Didn't cutting down social programs have a lot to do with the surplus?
Can we even give Bill Clinton the individual all the credit for the surplus?
One thing that surely helped the surplus was the reduction of our national defense. I saw the effects of that reduction first hand as I was in the Army in the Clinton years. My perspective was that it wasn't a good idea to cut national defense, at least not the way it was done.
My point I guess is that massive spending, especially done in such a fast and loose way, is a bad bad bad idea. It seems pretty panicy(is that a word?) to me. My suggestion is to slow down and line item veto all the pork thus reducing the total cost of the package. This isn't the opinion of a Republican, but it is the opinion of a once and hopefully future Republican, if they get their act together.
March 5, 2009 at 10:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Yes Clinton did leave us with a surplus, he balanced the budget, he does deserve credit for it, not sole credit but it was his fiscal policy that led us to that, I still remember when the debt counter in New York actually started turning the other way.
"Does what our government is doing now look like what the government did during the Clinton years?"
Clinton has gone on record agreeing with the stimulus, we'll see what happens, had the economy been at this point in his tenure I think we would have seen similar policy enacted. But its a what if scenario, so who knows.
And more of what I was pointing at with the republicans:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/2009...
March 5, 2009 at 10:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
It's interesting how you want us to listen to Reagan's former political director, but yet you claim FDR's policies worked, even though FDR's Treasury secretary said 6 years into it that their policies were not working. I like the way you selectively pick and choose who you want to listen to. I'm sure readers pick up on that as well.
"Damn good shape in 2000" (we entered a recession that year)
"The economy was nowhere as good as it should have been" - Oh now you're making me laugh till my sides hurt. I'll use that line for everything now. I don't think the economy was anywhere near where it should have been during Clinton - LOL. I'm sure 4 years from now when you're telling me Obama's policies "worked" I'll be able to find mountains of data showing it was "nowhere as good as it should have been"...... lots of people can point to alot of data showing our economy was nowhere as good as it should have been during the depression, thanks to FDR's policies. He actually created "a depression within a depression". Sometimes reading this board is better than watching a comedy show....LOL
"Clinton agrees with the stimulus".... Oh.... Clinton was also on record with agreeing that Iraq had WMD's, and was a dire threat......
"Let's start another war we can't pay for & not worry about it" -
so, you're saying that we CAN pay for everything we are spending money on now? Pray do tell, I'm all ears as to how we are spending SO much more responsibly now. Is ANYONE in Washington worrying about how we can pay for all this? And before you throw out the tired old line that all this pork is good for the economy, wars are generally good for economies, too....
I have no problem with raising taxes on the EXTREME top end. Clinton made tax cuts available to 90% of small businesses, and raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers in 2003, and our economy did well. But he also restrained spending. Not exactly our modus operandus right now.
March 5, 2009 at 12:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Here's an interesting story titled "The Bush Economy" by the WSJ. It points out both good & bad. Detailing how and which tax cuts worked, and how/which ones didn't, and why. Some good insights into what he did both right and wrong.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12321...
March 5, 2009 at 12:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I gotta admit, I am wrong on one point.
As of January, 2008 - average unemployment during all of Bush's term - 5.0% - (Bad)...
Average unemployment during all of Clinton term - 5.4% - (Good)
I guess, since things weren't as good as they could have been, we should have had higher unemployment, to match the glory years of Clinton.
It's just one stat out of many, but isn't all this spin fun? LOL
Well, unfortunately, I'm going to be traveling the next few days, so I'm going to have to get my comedy from SNL or something for awhile..... good weekend, all :)
March 5, 2009 at 1:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy:
I think the idea here in America is to start demanding what we want the government to do on a national level rather than waiting for a candidate that is saying it to get there. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and so far, the ones looking to have everything done for them by the government are the squeakiest. If it looks like President Obama is looking to cater to them rather than look past them at the good of the entire country, then he does not have my approval--no matter how many days he's in. How in the world does approving financing for abortions in other countries help our citizens? How is it protecting us? How is it following a model of smart economics? It was his first act as president and it was in response to the squeaky wheels--it was also an act of harm toward our country. No optimism about his next plan for me, thank you. Burn me once, shame on you. Burn me twice, shame on me. He has already burned me. That doesn't mean I won't support him in good measures, but it does mean I will not follow him blindly or wait and see and give him a chance. It means I am going to start being the squeakiest wheel I can be because he seems to respond to that.
March 5, 2009 at 3:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Glad I could entertain you, wish I found the humor in things that you do...
March 5, 2009 at 4:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )