RE: Obama and inconsistency (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama and inconsistency (1/29/2010 9:08:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Btw Steven, I thought I heard Obama say today that the "freeze" does not begin until 2011 fiscal budget at which time hopefully the economy will be out of recession and we will be looking for ways to balance the budget.


Thats what he said. Of course the real reason is so that he can increase budgets this year for his pet causes enough to cover what they would have gotten in the 3 year freeze (some budgets are proposed to increase over 100%). Then he can call a freeze and sound like a centrist.




Brain -> RE: Obama and inconsistency (1/29/2010 11:48:00 PM)

He will try to produce jobs using unspent stimulus money because it is not new government spending, so that is NOT and he is not inconsistent.


Why stimulus money goes unspent

States have a lot of money to spend. They, along with local governments, are charged with administering about $280 billion of stimulus funds over the next few years, according to the Government Accountability Office, which is tracking states' use of the money. About $49 billion will be doled out this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.

Of that amount, about 90% will be spent on health, transportation and education, primarily through the Medicaid, highway infrastructure and state fiscal stabilization for education programs.

Other than for Medicaid, however, the majority of the money has yet to leave Washington. States have spent only $7.9 million in highway funds, about 10% of what's been made available, according to a federal Department of Transportation report from April 24. And they haven't claimed any of the $5.4 billion in state stabilization funds for education, though eight states have had their applications approved over the past two weeks.

Of course, in some cases, federal agencies dole out the funds over time. For road projects, states request reimbursement from the federal government as they pay the bills. So spending will always lag behind the dollars committed.

"Some outlays happen over years," said Lana Hurdle, the federal Department of Transportation's acting assistant secretary for budget and programs. "It's not something that happens over weeks. There's more than just one single bill per project."

States have even more work to do before they can claim other funds....

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/05/news/economy/spending_stimulus_money/index.htm




ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Obama and inconsistency (1/30/2010 12:08:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Absolutely true.  However, the economy is now his.  He spent a huge amount of our money for a stimulus, and the jobs have not resulted.

There is a huge difference between Bush and Obama in their words.  But Obama has not produced clean breaks with Bush in the conduct of the wars, the bailout of the economy, etc.

I didn't like Bush's policies when Bush did them, and I don't like them when Obama does them either.



I feel like I'm standing at the checkout counter of the grocery store, telling the cashier, "Excuse me - I'm still waiting for my change, please."

I won't say I've completely given up on him yet, because he could still surprise me, but at this point I have no real expectations of him anymore. To me he has the look of a man who is in completely over his head in the executive role. I don't think he has any concept of what true leadership really is. Or if he does, he has no balls to do it. Either way it still comes out the same - no leadership.




NorthernGent -> RE: Obama and inconsistency (1/30/2010 4:47:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

When Obama pushed the stimulus, it was predicated on the notion that government spending created jobs. Fiscal conservatives believed either that it did not in fact do so or that it did but at a high expense.

Now in his SOTU address, he's going to announce that he will clamp down on spending while at the same time try to create jobs.  So it sounds like he will be decoupling job creation and federal spending.

Any ideas where he will try to produce jobs from if he is successful in reining in spending?  Or will he up spending this year while promising to cut a few quadrillion next year?



It's fairly obvious that a significant injection of funds will generate jobs (where well spent) regardless of the agency. Whether or not the government is best placed to deliver value for money is another matter altogether. I've worked private and public sector - in my experience don't believe the hype about the private sector being the so-called machine devoid of waste.

In terms of the idea of spend cuts and job creation - well they're not necessarily mutually exclusive - but it certainly will require a significant improvement in the use of resources (and there is always room for improvement).

Due to the part of England in which I come from (Durham) - I've spent a bit of time looking at Durham North Carolina - and by all accounts it is a success story in terms of what public sector bodies can achieve - anyone know much about this?

But as a general point - anyone actually falling for cheap soundbites really shouldn't be allowed the vote. In the modern world politicians have limited influence and there are ways and means of 'big business' ensuring politicians pander to them rather than the other way round.




NorthernGent -> RE: Obama and inconsistency (1/30/2010 4:53:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Absolutely true.  However, the economy is now his.  He spent a huge amount of our money for a stimulus, and the jobs have not resulted.



Job creation is not a short term matter. It takes significant investment in infrastucture/transport links/skills/training/funding available for ideas to translate into businesses - and creative ones at that etc. You're talking at least 5 years to see sound results.

The problem with the electorate is the same as the banks - everyone wants results now and they're not prepared to wait.

I'm rapidly coming round to the idea that enfranchisement is counter-productive because every idiot and his dog thinks he knows what he's talking about and isn't prepared to stay the course in the long term - short termism within the public generates short-termism among politicians.




vincentML -> RE: Obama and inconsistency (1/30/2010 7:52:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Btw Steven, I thought I heard Obama say today that the "freeze" does not begin until 2011 fiscal budget at which time hopefully the economy will be out of recession and we will be looking for ways to balance the budget.


Thats what he said. Of course the real reason is so that he can increase budgets this year for his pet causes enough to cover what they would have gotten in the 3 year freeze (some budgets are proposed to increase over 100%). Then he can call a freeze and sound like a centrist.


Will, you think he would do something so obvious and easily discovered?

He also said that most or all (I don't recall exactly) increases were automatic triggers from legislation previous to his Administration and as a consequence of current economic conditions.




mnottertail -> RE: Obama and inconsistency (1/30/2010 7:56:24 AM)

think this is a 'read my lips' thing, vince?

lol, these clowns out here.

Ron




vincentML -> RE: Obama and inconsistency (1/30/2010 7:57:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Absolutely true.  However, the economy is now his.  He spent a huge amount of our money for a stimulus, and the jobs have not resulted.

There is a huge difference between Bush and Obama in their words.  But Obama has not produced clean breaks with Bush in the conduct of the wars, the bailout of the economy, etc.

I didn't like Bush's policies when Bush did them, and I don't like them when Obama does them either.



I feel like I'm standing at the checkout counter of the grocery store, telling the cashier, "Excuse me - I'm still waiting for my change, please."

I won't say I've completely given up on him yet, because he could still surprise me, but at this point I have no real expectations of him anymore. To me he has the look of a man who is in completely over his head in the executive role. I don't think he has any concept of what true leadership really is. Or if he does, he has no balls to do it. Either way it still comes out the same - no leadership.



Hi Panda! The stim is a three year roll out.

He really showed his stuff in Q&A with the Republican Caucus, I think.

quote:

To me he has the look of a man who is in completely over his head in the executive role. I don't think he has any concept of what true leadership really is. Or if he does, he has no balls to do it.


Examples maybe?




Jeffff -> RE: Obama and inconsistency (1/30/2010 7:58:39 AM)

Numbers without context.... it does get tiresome




vincentML -> RE: Obama and inconsistency (1/30/2010 8:01:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

think this is a 'read my lips' thing, vince?

lol, these clowns out here.

Ron


I don't, Ron. Not anywhere as bad as Bush elder. Pols make promises in campaigns and then find out how difficult it is to govern such a variety of vested interests. I'd love to see us out of two wars pretty damn quick. Disappointed. But the alternative - McCain? and Palin? ghack!




vincentML -> RE: Obama and inconsistency (1/30/2010 8:09:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Absolutely true.  However, the economy is now his.  He spent a huge amount of our money for a stimulus, and the jobs have not resulted.



Job creation is not a short term matter. It takes significant investment in infrastucture/transport links/skills/training/funding available for ideas to translate into businesses - and creative ones at that etc. You're talking at least 5 years to see sound results.

The problem with the electorate is the same as the banks - everyone wants results now and they're not prepared to wait.

I'm rapidly coming round to the idea that enfranchisement is counter-productive because every idiot and his dog thinks he knows what he's talking about and isn't prepared to stay the course in the long term - short termism within the public generates short-termism among politicians.


Our Pols begin to run for their re-election as soon as they are sworn in. They run on local issues as well as party success. I imagine it is the same in the UK. Here, however, election season is longer and each must first raise funds to fight off Primary challenges. Very costly to run for any national office here. Is that the case in the UK?




ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Obama and inconsistency (1/30/2010 12:59:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Absolutely true.  However, the economy is now his.  He spent a huge amount of our money for a stimulus, and the jobs have not resulted.

There is a huge difference between Bush and Obama in their words.  But Obama has not produced clean breaks with Bush in the conduct of the wars, the bailout of the economy, etc.

I didn't like Bush's policies when Bush did them, and I don't like them when Obama does them either.



I feel like I'm standing at the checkout counter of the grocery store, telling the cashier, "Excuse me - I'm still waiting for my change, please."

I won't say I've completely given up on him yet, because he could still surprise me, but at this point I have no real expectations of him anymore. To me he has the look of a man who is in completely over his head in the executive role. I don't think he has any concept of what true leadership really is. Or if he does, he has no balls to do it. Either way it still comes out the same - no leadership.



Hi Panda! The stim is a three year roll out.

He really showed his stuff in Q&A with the Republican Caucus, I think.


Well, we'll see. Possibly. It might be a start. We'll see where he goes next. But even if it's so, it's about a year late. I have seen almost none of the substantive changes he promised on the campaign trail. He has spent the entire year doing business pretty much as usual, with very little variation from the Bush Administration.



quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

To me he has the look of a man who is in completely over his head in the executive role. I don't think he has any concept of what true leadership really is. Or if he does, he has no balls to do it.


Examples maybe?


Health care is a prime example.  He showed absolutely no leadership on that at all. He set it in motion with broad, populist calls to action, and then stepped aside and let Congress fight over the details. Whenever the momentum stalled, he went on television and badgered both parties to get down to business and get the job done, but he never took a clear position and specified exactly what he wanted them to do. He deliberately distanced himself from the down-and-dirty, trying to stay above the fight to look Presidential and preserve his political capital, and articulating only vague objectives for what he wanted to see come out the other end. Almost all of which he backed off on whenever a poll suggested he might lose a few points if he fought for it.

Democratic leaders openly begged the man to come out and take a stand, to declare what he would and would not accept in a final bill, and he refused to do it. Just continued to harangue them for not getting it done. He looked more and more like a fool, constantly warning the American people about how critical it was that Congress finish this bill, but never once being able to explain exactly what the bill was going to do. That's terrible leadership, and his lack of effective leadership is the primary reason the republicans were able to stall it, gut it, and ultimately kill it. This failure is his failure. He wouldn't lead because he was afraid to lose.

And now he's lost everything. At this point, there is nothing that will get me out of the house and into the polling place this November. The democrats have finally lost me, once and for all, just as the republicans lost me several years ago. It's almost impossible for me to imagine ever voting democrat again. This party - his party - has shown that it is not capable of leading and governing. And there are many, many others who feel the same way.




NorthernGent -> RE: Obama and inconsistency (1/30/2010 3:42:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Absolutely true.  However, the economy is now his.  He spent a huge amount of our money for a stimulus, and the jobs have not resulted.



Job creation is not a short term matter. It takes significant investment in infrastucture/transport links/skills/training/funding available for ideas to translate into businesses - and creative ones at that etc. You're talking at least 5 years to see sound results.

The problem with the electorate is the same as the banks - everyone wants results now and they're not prepared to wait.

I'm rapidly coming round to the idea that enfranchisement is counter-productive because every idiot and his dog thinks he knows what he's talking about and isn't prepared to stay the course in the long term - short termism within the public generates short-termism among politicians.


Our Pols begin to run for their re-election as soon as they are sworn in. They run on local issues as well as party success. I imagine it is the same in the UK. Here, however, election season is longer and each must first raise funds to fight off Primary challenges. Very costly to run for any national office here. Is that the case in the UK?


Similar Vincent in the sense that as soon as they're in they're in the spotlight.

Of course we have large donations from vested interests to both of the main parties - some of whom end up in the House of Lords.

Ask a question on the issues of the day and the reponse is: "well in 1926 the Labour Party/Conservative Party fucked everything up"........either that or they go for detail when a broad picture is required or a broad picture when detail is required......basically you're struggling to get a straight answer out of them and at this point it's hard work looking at them let alone listening to them.

Anyway - job creation - it's a long term initiative and driven by various factors outside of the control of 'stimulus' and government.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama and inconsistency (1/30/2010 4:59:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

He will try to produce jobs using unspent stimulus money because it is not new government spending, so that is NOT and he is not inconsistent.




And when he spends returned TARP money that was, by law, supposed to be used to reduce the deficit?




vincentML -> RE: Obama and inconsistency (1/30/2010 7:20:55 PM)


quote:

vincentML

Our Pols begin to run for their re-election as soon as they are sworn in. They run on local issues as well as party success. I imagine it is the same in the UK. Here, however, election season is longer and each must first raise funds to fight off Primary challenges. Very costly to run for any national office here. Is that the case in the UK?


quote:

Northern Gent:

Similar Vincent in the sense that as soon as they're in they're in the spotlight.

Of course we have large donations from vested interests to both of the main parties - some of whom end up in the House of Lords.

Ask a question on the issues of the day and the reponse is: "well in 1926 the Labour Party/Conservative Party fucked everything up"........either that or they go for detail when a broad picture is required or a broad picture when detail is required......basically you're struggling to get a straight answer out of them and at this point it's hard work looking at them let alone listening to them.


Ah, too bad. I have lunch frequently with a neighbor who is formerly a trade rep for the US. He has a flat in a London suburb as well as one downstairs here. We have been debating the ideas of Howard Zinn who just passed and got around to Zinn's notion that big change comes from resistence and protest in the streets. My friend argued that common folk at the baricades here in the US need intellectuals to lead them in their protests. The point of all this being the inertia of the US govt.

He says he will explain to me why the UK form is superior. Doesn't sound so from what you say. It should be an interesting discussion.

Thank you, NG.




servantforuse -> RE: Obama and inconsistency (1/30/2010 7:33:28 PM)

We have a great example of how stimulus money will be spent here in Wisconsin. The democrats just approved spending 823 million to build a rail line that runs between Milwaukee and Madison. ( about 65 miles).You can drive there in an hour and ten minutes. The new "high speed rail which will go 79 mph will drop folks off at the Madison airport, 8 miles from downtown Madison. It will end up being a billion dollar boondoggle .




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama and inconsistency (1/30/2010 9:47:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

We have a great example of how stimulus money will be spent here in Wisconsin. The democrats just approved spending 823 million to build a rail line that runs between Milwaukee and Madison. ( about 65 miles).You can drive there in an hour and ten minutes. The new "high speed rail which will go 79 mph will drop folks off at the Madison airport, 8 miles from downtown Madison. It will end up being a billion dollar boondoggle .


Same thing with the high speed rail project between San Franciso and Anaheim. It will never be utilized nearly enough to justify the cost. High speed rail between LA and Vegas...that would be utilized...but likely with a net social cost.




DomKen -> RE: Obama and inconsistency (1/30/2010 11:54:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

We have a great example of how stimulus money will be spent here in Wisconsin. The democrats just approved spending 823 million to build a rail line that runs between Milwaukee and Madison. ( about 65 miles).You can drive there in an hour and ten minutes. The new "high speed rail which will go 79 mph will drop folks off at the Madison airport, 8 miles from downtown Madison. It will end up being a billion dollar boondoggle .

Actually a big chunk of that money is to improve the rail line from Milwaukee to Chicago. they're aiming for 110 mph cruise compared to the present 80. Faster trips downtown to downtown will reduce car trips and once the Milwaukee to Madison line is extended to the Minneapolis, part of the same plan, it will allow rail travel between Chicago and Minneapolis and only slightly longer travel times than airliners, especially if the origination or destination is downtown in either city.

Also part of the deal is that a Spanish company will build some high speed rail cars in the state. Which certainly means jobs in Wisconsin.




NorthernGent -> RE: Obama and inconsistency (1/31/2010 2:58:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Ah, too bad. I have lunch frequently with a neighbor who is formerly a trade rep for the US. He has a flat in a London suburb as well as one downstairs here. We have been debating the ideas of Howard Zinn who just passed and got around to Zinn's notion that big change comes from resistence and protest in the streets. My friend argued that common folk at the baricades here in the US need intellectuals to lead them in their protests. The point of all this being the inertia of the US govt.

He says he will explain to me why the UK form is superior. Doesn't sound so from what you say. It should be an interesting discussion.

Thank you, NG.



I'd argue that change comes from your environment which in turn generates your tradition/history/the way you think which in turn forms the future.

Take England as an example: our form of government hasn't changed for 400 years and in that time the Germans and French have had countless revolutions (or attempts at revolution) plus dictatorships etc. We have the luxury of being an island without the threat of an army marching over our borders back in the day of imperialism. That in itself has led to moderate views and political stability. There's no charm in radical change here and there's a sort of cautious optimism rather than the big ideas that are a feature of German and French history and can still be seen today.

In terms of our political system - it would be hard to argue that it's superior Vincent. Money doesn't have the influence here that it does in the United States (and there are cultural reasons for that) but class is still an obession in England and by virtue of this issue we ultimately have the same problem of narrow interests dominating the political scene.

In terms of intellectuals leading the protest - my understanding is that England and the United States have plenty of intellectuals to go round - the issue is that they're sceptical of such protests and believe that negative freedom is the best form of government.




DarkSteven -> RE: Obama and inconsistency (1/31/2010 4:58:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

Health care is a prime example.  He showed absolutely no leadership on that at all. He set it in motion with broad, populist calls to action, and then stepped aside and let Congress fight over the details. Whenever the momentum stalled, he went on television and badgered both parties to get down to business and get the job done, but he never took a clear position and specified exactly what he wanted them to do.



Panda, that part of your post saddened me...

I am a firm believer in a weak federal government.  The government was designed with three branches in it for a reason.

Properly speaking, Obama behaved exactly like he should have.  Congress is supposed to originate laws, and the President should veto or sign them.  In actual fact, Congress has done nothing on its own for decades, and simply added its own pork onto whatever the President has wanted.  The very fact that people talk about Congress "blocking" the President's bills indicates how far out of whack the system is.

The President shouldn't HAVE bills.  Congress should be initiating, and the President should be blocking or passing them!




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
5.859375E-02