Obama's Seven Broken Campaign Promises in the Stimulus Package
 

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/o...cy-about-bills

I'm not familiar with this site--probably a right-wing one--but it matters not--the key is the video clip and the list of broken promises. The clip is from the campaign in 2007, I think--the date doesn't matter to me.

Is this the "change we can believe in?" A politician saying one thing during a campaign and doing the opposite when in office isn't really a change, is it?

EDIT: The link doesn't work, Guvy says, so here it is on YouTube:
Here are the seven promises:

1. Make government open and transparent.

2. Make it "impossible" for Congressmen to slip in pork barrel projects.

3. Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public. (Even Congressional Republicans shut out.)

4. No more secrecy.

5. Public will have 5 days to look at a bill.

6. You’ll know what’s in it.

7. We will put every pork barrel project online.


I frankly think 3 and 4 are part of the same promise, but nevertheless, it's pretty breathtaking.

Yeah, well the link is broken and the site is rabidly right wing.

Thanks. I fixed it with a link straight to Youtube and the list from Sweetness and Light so folks won't have to go to a right wing site to see it.

why is this interesting or important?

Interesting to see just how soon Barry forgot what he campaigned on.

Important because of what his forgetfulness is costing us.

If you don't see anything of interest or importance, I'll understand if you don't check back in.

This is your chance to save the thread with something interesting and important. Perhaps a ramble on conservativeland?

Is this libspeak for 'nothing to see here, move along'????

How about some consideration of the timeframe here? He's been in office less than a month. Those things take TIME to set up, and he's spent all his TIME in the last less-than-month trying to save your sorry ass from economic collapse.

To now say, "Hey, you're a big cheating liar politician guy because you haven't made sunshine shine out my ass in the last 27 days" is pretty lame, even for partisan hackery.

Used to be we gave presidents 100 days. Despite some right-wing quacking to the contrary, the fact is that even George Bush got 100 days before people really started in on him. I heard people calling for Obama's impeachment on fucking January 21st. Could we just give it a REST for a bit, people? The campaign season is OVER. Yeah, you lost, and I feel real bad for your poor hurt feelings. But there's a country that the guy's trying to run (America First, 'member?) and while you're free to disagree on how he does it, what'll work is to set aside knee-jerk politics and have a substantive discussion of issues.

I have no clue what you're talking about, which may make two of us, or it may be I'm just not understanding it.

This isn't about a timeframe--how long does it take to remember what you promised to do when elected? It's more about how long it took to FORGET it.

Plus, what he's doing isn't designed to save me or anyone else from economic collapse. Or at least I don't think it is, but since the bill was rammed through at lightning speed without careful deliberation, and with a lot of junk in it that he promised wouldn't be allowed--and he won't veto it--I can't be sure. I know there are many provisions that aren't stimulative in nature. Now, those programs being funded may or may not be good for America--but to put such in a bill designed to get the economy stimulated NOW and try to sell it to us as such is just dishonest. Or ignorant. Either one is a loser for the country.




I'm not a partisan hack--I didn't like it when the Bush admin rammed through that TARP junk last year.

And NONE of us should be partisans when it comes to baldfaced lying to the voters.

What I'm saying is, there's a big difference between forgetting something and not having done it yet.

I don't at all disagree that he hasn't done it yet. I think you're making a quite a leap when you propose that he's forgotten it, and assume he won't ever do it.

That wasn't directed specifically at you or the OP so much. Though I can get it probably sounded like it was.

"Lying to voters" is one valid interpretation of the events. "Too busy attending to the economy" might be another.

1) Anyone calling for Obama's impeachment already (unless it's on a bad SNL sketch) is an idiot.

2) I'm curious as to how any of what you said here has to do with those seven things in the original post and how he couldn't have worked it all into the stimulus plan. We aren't talking about solving the economy in a month here, but things like avoiding pork and opening the process.

He's the guy with the veto and the support of the people, while Congress still has a low approval rating. He could have done something.

Did you see the clip?

The list of what he didn't do in getting this stimulus bill through is accurate.

Says one thing, does something entirely different--Change?

Fair point, but he still could have done SOMETHING.

if i had had more time when i posted initially, i would have asked how exactly the logic works that has the right squealing about "broken promises" and other such less than a month into the administration in a context characterized by a significant economic crisis that was brought about at every level through the implementation of the economic and social policies championed by the right itself for the past 8 years in power and for the previous 30 or so in periods that alternated between being in power (nixon, reagan, bush 1) and opposition (clinton)?

i would maybe understand the squealing if the situation left behind by george w bush resembled in some way that which w walked into--a period of relative stability in the context of which the new administration would have the luxury of having some time to work out exactly what directions it thinks best to take.

but this is not the situation, and everyone knows that this is not the situation: so either you have to figure out a way to pretend reality is other than it is--or you have to factor it in.

if you factor it out, it seems to me you render yourself incoherent.
if you factor it in, the question obviously arises of the reasonableness of the standard you're pretending to hold obama to, particularly---again---given the fact that the shitstorm he's walked into is a direct result of conservative ideology implemented.

so i don't see these criticisms as having a rational basis at this point.

i would maybe see them as legit at this point in a different reality---and to the extent that some of these claims seem good as goals to me, i'd expect obama to advance them in the medium term. if he doesn't, then the complaints would seem more reasonable. now they don't.


not that you'd care, but i am concerned about what obama has done so far because i don't see it as going anywhere near far enough fast enough. but that's another matter.

1. Yep, such a person is absolutely an idiot--for many reasons, but not least of which would be "who'd want Joe Biden as president, anyway??"

2. You nailed that second point. A stimulus package may or may not have been needed, but had Obama kept his campaign promises on how it was to be handled, what we wound up with would not have looked like this.
-----Added 16/2/2009 at 05 : 02 : 38-----
Ok, this isn't about what Bush did or didn't do--I am not a fan of his.

This is about what Obama said and then didn't do.

Focus, man, focus.

There is a political process that is deeply embedded in the American democracy that cannot be changed overnight. Obama doesnt set how long senators have to deliberate, read a bill, etc. And, as someone who has actually written part of a congressional report, I can tell you that this entire "I didnt get time to read it" argument is bunk, because it is true of almost every bill passed in the half a century. So the idea that he would come in and completely revamp the legislative process in 27 days is something that only those deeply partisan would believe in.

And as far as the "non stimulative" parts of the project, the whole notion that it is somehow something completely unrelated to job creation is a falsehood that even republicans have to be ashamed to admit.

FYIhttp://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/graph.png

And finally, the fact is that in at least two of those items he has done something, which is making government open and transparent (i.e., changing the limits to the freedom of information act established by Bush) and meeting with republicans (republicans themselves admitted that he met more often with them through this than Bush through tarp).

The rest is a lot of hang wringing from people that think that politics happens in a vacuum.

Here are the seven promises:

1. Make government open and transparent.

What has his administration hidden from the public?

2. Make it "impossible" for Congressmen to slip in pork barrel projects.

What pork projects were "slipped into" a bill so far?

3. Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public. (Even Congressional Republicans shut out.)

What meetings are you referring to?

4. No more secrecy.

What has he been secretive about?

5. Public will have 5 days to look at a bill.

Alright, he hasn't done this yet (at least not on this bill), but isn't time of the essence in getting this thing passed?

6. You’ll know what’s in it.

We know what's in it.

7. We will put every pork barrel project online.

Which one's aren't?

1 and 4) One of the first things Obama did was issue a new FOIA memo that directs all federal agencies to presume that FOIA requests should be honored ending the Bush policy of finding any means to deny FOIA requests. By any measure, that means more open and transparent. IMO, one of the most important, but little known actions, of Obama's first days in office.

2) The stimulus bill to create jobs in the short term by its very nature will provide funding to local projects. Call it pork if you want...projects to provide jobs.

3) Obama met with Republicans in both the House and Senate and included some of their suggestions on the tax relief side of the stimulus bill. Beyond that, this is a Congressional matter that the Republicans have grossly misrepresented and you obviously bought into. The current rules in the House and Senate are more open then they were under the Republicans....it doesnt mean the minority party gets an equal seat at the table. The Republicans didnt complain in 07-08 when the Democrats first assumed the majority because they had the "veto" wild card in the WH.

5) Three or four days instead of five...the bill passed Congress on Friday and will be signed on Tuesday....slap him down on this one.

6 and 7) The White House created a website, recovery.gov, that will list the projects funded...after the bill is signed.

So, I think its fair to say that the notion of seven broken promises is bullshit. What more do you want in one month?

And you call yourself, A Voice of Reason?

Focus man, focus....on facts, not right wing talking points!

that's funny stuff.

in the empirical world--you know, consensus reality---the present situation is very much about the bush administration and what it did and did not do. sure, it's not *only* conditioned by the bush administration--it's also conditioned by the implosion of neoliberalism as a function of it's having been implemented.

there's no way around it. it doesn't matter if you like it or not. and trying to wave away reality so your talking points stand up says mostly that your talking points are---um---problematic.

any coherent discussion of what obama's done and has not done in his first month in office--and it's been a month---has treat his actions in relation to the situation he's encountered.

but maybe coherence is not your focus, man.

Thank you for saying what I was thinking but didn't want to waist my time yelling at the deaf.

Oh hey look at this!

http://www.recovery.gov/

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ygov-launched/

*emphasis by me.

oh no! what will the GOP do now that their talking points are shot down. Oh wait never mind they will just make up new ones.

What dc_dux said, plus the incredibly obvious point that Obama's campaign promises were promises of what he would do *during his administration*, not what he would do with the very first bill through congress. Also, any promise a presidential candidate makes is made with the understanding that our government has *three* parts, and a president can only do so much without the cooperation of congress. For instance, #2 and #3 pretty much require congressional cooperation. Not to mention the fact that the assertion that the democrats didn't work with the republicans in congress is a flat-out lie. Hard to pick out among all the other lies.
-----Added 17/2/2009 at 04 : 38 : 11-----
Make up new ones *and* continue to use the old ones. Practically no one on TV or even in the newspapers will call them on it because 'reporters' these days don't care about 'facts'.

I've just been notified that my paycheck would be smaller because the taxes on my life insurance would be going up, and I make significantly less than 200,000.

NOT ONE PENNY!!

I bet you can't find a single instance of Obama claiming that the taxes on your life insurance wouldn't go up.

There is not alot of support for what the OP is trying to say. When George bush made promises and then faltered, he was put out to pasture by many people. I am sure that now that we have a democrat in office there will be a switch from the "liberal media" to "conservative Media." Who cares. I mean he is going to do whatever he wants to regardless of what we, Americans, think or say. Much like George Bush did.

Somebody did ask why is this important. Well when a man is elected because he want to change America for the better and does not pull through on the small things he has said he will do, how do we expect him to pull through on some larger issues like the Iraq War or the incomprehensible nation deficit.

Here is a quick website to check up on how Obama is doing on his some 500 campaign promises
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Um, what? By how much, exactly? I don't have a pay stub in front of me, but IIRC, I personally pay something like $15/mo for life insurance. Of course, I'm young and healthy, so maybe...

But even so, I can't imagine that a higher tax rate on life insurance would add up to anything significant, so I'm confused.

I also don't see anything like this on The Google, so...

Yeah I don't see any news on life insurance taxes going up. Can you scan the letter you got and post it for us to see?