|
Quote:
---------- Post added at 08:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:48 PM ---------- Quote:
|
ace what the hell are you talking about? you're imputing to me your own delusions concerning what a "typical obama supporter" as constructed by the balthering classes on the right would prefer to think.
i'm not particularly a supporter of obama--i think he pays too much attention to fools like you, wastes too much energy trying to take the nitwit worldview you inhabit seriously. i would prefer that obama were quite a lot more aggressive in marginalizing conservatives and would have a clearer, stronger plan for what he's going to do moving forward. but you believe whatever nonsense floats your boat, whatever helps you preserve the seal on that jar you live in that enables you to pretend that there's no economic crisis, that neoliberalism makes sense, and that your "arguments" are coherent. maybe find more interesting conservative talking heads to repeat messages from. that'd help. |
No need for name calling.
I find it absolutely hilarious that Obama jammed a bunch of lower taxes in his plan because he thought it would appease the right. I like Obama, but he's naive. |
Quote:
When I used the word "you", I was not referring to you, but "us" collectively, I just had difficulty with the thought that "I" am a part of the "us", getting screwed. I apologize for the confusion. But my point is that we had a man saying everything the nation wanted to hear to get elected and now there is reality to deal with. |
i understand the gist of your problem, ace.
it's abundantly clear. what you do not seem to understand are the myriad reasons for not bothering with most of them--they aren't serious as critiques--they're based on some arbitrary standard for action that no president has lived up to, least of all republicans. what conservatives arrogate to themselves--probably out of habit given the extent to which conservative language has been dominant over the past decades--is the ability to set those standards. but that doesn't come from anywhere, isn't based on anything--it's a best a collective verbal tic. so far, i think obama's been pretty consistent in doing what he said he would do--as consistent as any reasonable person might expect--a bit more so even in some areas. not all. on the earmark thing that the right is trying to make hay about: the claim that the budget was negociated last fall is not really open to debate. if that's the case, then it hardly makes sense to thrash about concerning it's content, now does it? maybe for conservatives it does, but that has more to do with the sorry position the last 8 years of conservative power has left them in than it does with anything about the obama administration. but i'll say that i would prefer fewer earmarks, mostly because even as i understand them to be a way in which congress does horsetrading in order to broker deals that enable stuff to get done, they seem an end-around insofar as an actual democratic process is concerned, shallow though it may be. so next year, we'll all see. in the immediate run, the debacle left behind by neoliberalism is a far greater concern to me. i can't imagine why it isn't to you. |
I think maybe the earmark critics are under the impression that the president personally writes legislation, or that the president has line item veto power.
|
I don't understand the complaints about earmarks. First, to the best of my recollection, Obama never promised to get rid of earmarks. And second, he shouldn't get rid of them. They're simply how Congress makes sure the money it's spending is being spent how it wants. Sure, there are sometimes silly things that the money gets spent on, but getting rid of earmarks altogether just throws the baby out with the bathwater. Moreover, most of what sounds silly is often not. Consider volcano monitoring, a vital technology proven to save lives -- this is what the Republican party chooses to criticize, just because they think it might sound silly.
|
Quote:
I think earmarks are possibly a useful tool, but have unfortunately been abused in the past. I think it's great that congresspeople can single out individual projects and needs in their districts, and put some federal dollars towards them. In the ideal case, this makes government more responsive to local needs, instead of vast, one size fits all 'programs'. At worst, it lets congresspeople play politics and line the pockets of their donors. With proper regulation and controls, I think earmarks could be a great thing. Say if each and every congressperson got $x (maybe based on the # of people in their district) to spend on discretionary projects, with 100% transparency, and perhaps other controls. They should be able to say 'we need a library in our district, here's $1mil for it...but shouldn't be able to select which contractor gets to build the library. |
President Barack Obama signed a $410 billion spending bill Wednesday that includes thousands of pet projects inserted by lawmakers, even as he unveiled new rules to restrict such so-called earmarks.
At the same time, after Democrats criticized former President George W. Bush's signing statements, Mr. Obama issued one of his own, declaring five provisions in the spending bill to be unconstitutional and nonbinding, including one aimed at preventing punishment of whistleblowers. Here's Obama during the campaign talking about the unconstitutionality of signing statements: |
I have to say I'm enjoying the convoluted ways in which certain people are attempting to bring fanatical Obama supporters to task.
I was going to respond to Mr. Sane, but then I realized that I'm probably not an Obama "disciple" even though I voted for him. I then wondered if such disciples actually exist, given the overly simplistic naivete attributed to them. Then, assuming that they do exist, I wondered whether they constitute a significant enough portion of the American populace to warrant the desperate attempts by folks like Mr. Sane to hold them accountable for every discrepancy between Obama the president from Obama the candidate. Clearly, many of the folks like Mr. Sane (I don't know specifically about him/her) don't actually have problems with the things Obama is doing, because they didn't seem to speak up while the last president was doing them. And it can't be that a president breaking campaign promises is that interesting: is anyone really surprised when it happens? So what is the deal with this psychological need to take mythical Obama disciples to task? I guess in other words: Who fucking cares? |
Quote:
I'll remove the offending comment since it seems to have gotten you so far off task. |
Quote:
And in any case, your post is actually more about implicitly playing up the significance of Obama fanatics for the purpose of calling them out than it is about how Obama is doing. The content of our posts are practically identical in their proximity to how Obama is doing. Quote:
|
You are right. Good bye.
|
Quote:
---------- Post added at 10:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 PM ---------- Quote:
|
Do you really suppose Obama supporters were primarily motivated by his stance against earmarking?
Why do Democrats have to be portrayed as zealots for voting for the frigging Democratic candidate for president? Let me put forth a challenge here: Can someone name five issues that Obama supporters were motivated by that don't include earmarking? I'll even make it easier and put out the first one. WAR. (That's a pretty important one for me personally.) Let's see how difficult it is to come up with just four more important issues that contrast dramatically with the Bush presidency that may have motivated people to be enthusiastic about the Obama presidency. Actually, I unwittingly gave away another important, motivational issue: THE BUSH PRESIDENCY. The enthusiasm about Obama was directly proportional to the repugnance people were feeling for the previous administration. I think it's a law of physics or something. |
The pendulum swing, Ms. Mixed.
Mr..Obama I believe is doing the best performance, (in the theatre sense), he possibly could. I wouldn't be able to stand before the nation at this point without visible knee-knocking. |
ace, darling, you just go right ahead and make up whatever you like that keeps your boat afloat.
i voted for obama because of his opposition to the iraq debacle. i voted for him because of his support for health care system overhaul. i voted for him because i figured that another republican administration after 8 years of the bush people would indicate that the united states had lost it's collective mind and could not be trusted to act in anyone's best interest any more. this became more a factor as neoliberal-land started to come undone in a serious way. and while i don't support everything he's done, and do not imagine that i will support everything he'll do---i find it a good thing that he's intelligent and curious about the world. and articulate. and the general outline of his policies so far have been a welcome dose of sanity after years of conservative ineptitude. |
Roachboy's post reminds me that I was also wanting to add that most of the people who voted for Obama, didn't have illusions about what he would be able to accomplish. This idea that we're all Pollyannas one spending bill away from total disillusionment is bullshit. More distraction. Distraction that serves to diminish the REAL reasons people voted for Obama. I know that many of us here in the TFP politics forum expressed these same thoughts long before the election. Obama is a politician and in politics someone always loses...and it's only sharply demarcated down party lines at election time. In fact, in the last few years I've become more of the mind that partisan politics is about theater - drama that keeps voters motivated - while the real power lies with those skilled in networking, sales and marketing. Oh my, just like big business.
I have been disappointed by choices made by the Obama administration thus far and I am positive I will be disappointed by their choices in the future. Thus is politics. And all this nitpicking and finger-pointing is childish. You want to ask folks about the disappointment of campaign promises? Try the pro-lifers. Right now I'm going to go back to watching Project Runway and finish my beer. Guess that makes me a good American. A good American that can rest easier tonight knowing there's not a war-mongering dunderhead in the White House. |
Quote:
I love how people mind fuck themselves into believing something is horrible, without actually knowing what they're on about. |
I am not defending earmarks in any way. But the republican fetish over earmarks is relatively easy to understand.
How can you run as the party of "small government" when most of the population, rightly or wrongly, loves big government programs? Now, in concept most of the population claim to like small government. But when they are actually asked about programs and spending items, most of them actually support a bigger government. The biggest item in the US budget is the military, and cutting spending on defense is incredibly unpopular. So where would a small government party cut spending? Well, they could cut it in entitlements, but the fact is that social security remains highly popular. Healthcare? Most support more govt. spending, not less. So what does that leave a party of small government that wants to remain politically competitive? Now, I am not making a value judgment about whether or not these programs are good or big govt is good. But the point remains that most people who say they are for small government are actually against cutting spending on the biggest items on the budget. So for a party to campaign on a small govt. they have to either expect defeat and campaign on cutting social security benefits and defense spending, or they have to try to blow small unpopular programs out of proportion. |
Find me a quote where Obama said he would eliminate earmarks?
Here is a video that includes what Obama said during the debates. Conservative media claim Obama broke earmarks pledge he never made - Daily Kos TV (beta) He never once said he would eliminate them. |
I guess I am confused. After watching the debates it seemed like McCain and Obama were going at it for quite some time over who would be toughest at eliminating earmarks. I got the impression that both men would never sign a bill with earmarks again. In my defense I bet the majority of people watching the debates got the same impression.
Now I see that what he really said was “We need earmark reform. And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” I guess I thought that meant he would go over it line by line and veto any bill unless the earmarks tacked on were eliminated. I guess his line by line analysis of the latest spending bill means he either agrees with all the 8500 earmarks or has decided to not pick a fight with congress at this time. It should be noted that Republicans account for something like 40 to 45% of the earmarks added to this spending bill. |
Quote:
|
taken out of context?
|
Quote:
In fact, in the speeches included in this montage, he says that the earmark process has been "abused' and needs to be "reformed." So he clearly does not promise to eliminate earmarks. Now, what he does say again and again during the video is that the stimulus bill does not contain earmarks. And according to the specific definition of earmarks, it really doesnt. Now, this is of course disingenuous, as it relies on a technicality. It is a bit of politicking on his part, but I am not partisan enough to throw my hands in the air about politicking from the president at the same time the republicans do quite a bit of politicking themselves over this issue. In fact, it is no worse than trying to pass off speeches as president as part of campaign promises. |
Yeah he didn't promise anywhere in that video to never have earmarks. Besides the president can't decide if a bill has earmarks or not short of vetoing every single bill that congress passes.
|
Quote:
I didnt hear or read that he made a promise, however he does state "We passed a recovery plan free of earmarks". Whatever, politicians should start saying what they mean, and mean what they say. Does breaking promises weigh any more or less over straight forward bullshiting? |
They did pass a recovery plan without earmarks....
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
---------- Post added at 08:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:58 PM ---------- Quote:
---------- Post added at 08:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:02 PM ---------- Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
{added} And I find this interesting as people get bent over about $100 million in bonuses, what about the billions sent to other institutions including overseas? Quote:
To me this illustrates a fundamental problem with government trying to micro-manage the private sector. They simply don't know what they are doing. So, after the first $85 billion, they throw more and more money at the problem, and now there is still another $30 billion infusion on the table and still no accounting for the money or controls, when will it end? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://chazzw.files.wordpress.com/20...shed_final.jpg Quote:
Now notice the date ace, notice the date Quote:
Quote:
|
it's kinda funny the extent to which folk like ace have to shave so much of reality off in order to make room for their obsolete conservative viewpoints to make sense.
aig--in the hall of mirrors on the right, this is something that was engineered during the obama administration. empirically, of course, it wasn't--but hey, why let facts get in the way? the bailout of a.i.g. was entirely reactive, done with extreme speed during the endgame of an administration that was ideologically opposed to regulation and so was ideologically opposed to the type of competences required and the type of planning required to be coherent once the need came--but this is of course obama's fault. on and on this drivel goes from the right. o and i oppose what obama's doing in afghanistan. but that, too, is yet another bush administration mess that the right would love to pretend somehow is obama's fault. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I don't care |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
---------- Post added at 10:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 PM ---------- Quote:
Please, let me know how much effort it takes? I think even the average 5th grader can clearly understand my views. ---------- Post added at 10:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:45 PM ---------- Quote:
|
people confuse morality tales with economics. Letting aig and the banks "fail" might feel good, but would be a disaster that would still be paid by the tax payers. It would completely freeze credit markets even more, disrupt the economy and with all certainty push us into a great depression. And the tax payers would either pay it all by losing all their savings, or pay it all through the fdic, or both.
It is very easy to say "let it fail" when one does not comprehend the consequences well enough. We are talking about the vast majority of the banking industry collapsing and taking any industry that needs credit in any way with them. Now, I don't agree with what Obama is doing, because that is indirectly helping the shareholders instead of the clients. But the solution to that, which is to temporarily nationalize these institutions and resell them, is considered even worse by conservatives. |
Quote:
Now after their policies failed the GOP needs a few new talking points and earmarks is high on that list. They're just betting a large % of the US voting population to be dumb enough not to notice they're adding earmarks too. Sadly they'll likely win that bet. One of the other sad parts is , as I said, not all earmarks are bad. People bitch and moan because the federal government want to spend money on things like honey bee research. What a dumb idea... until you realize bees are disappearing and they just happen to pollinate crops... crops that feed us. Yeah let's not spend money on that stupid research. Maybe we could spend a few billion on Iraqi bee research. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project