The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

You try submitting something to Congress without having it piled on with a bunch of expensive crap.

Here's an example of one I worked on help getting passed that was short and to the point, and it became law.

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by cartman

Here's an example of one I worked on help getting passed that was short and to the point, and it became law.

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Yeah but that was under a Rep Congress. (nice work though)

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Yeah but that was under a Rep Congress. (nice work though)

Which made it all the more difficult because it was pro-environment, and anti-gas exploration.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

So you would rather have no one advocate a fiscally sound position rather than have only a hypocrite advocate it? Isn't that a lot like cutting off your nose to spite your face?

I think it does more damage when you have a hypocrite championing your cause. Kind of like a morbidly obese guy telling everyone they need to eat healthy.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

So you would rather have no one advocate a fiscally sound position rather than have only a hypocrite advocate it? Isn't that a lot like cutting off your nose to spite your face?

For me it comes down to a few problems. One, they need to take real ownership of what they did. I don't know if there's a freshman House member for the GOP, so when they say the Republicans lost their principles they mean I lost my principles. I'd feel much better if Cantor or Boehner or some other high profile member said, I personally voted or a lot of excess spending and I'm going to lead the charge to repeal some of what I voted for under Bush.

Second, timing matters. It's just too soon to go crazy over spending. I don't really buy it, because I don't really believe they've come to any epiphany other than maybe this will get them back into power.

Third, don't push a series of tax cuts that will add many multiples of the stimulus to the deficit and expect me to see you as fiscally responsible.

I'd be happy with a party that forced a balanced budget in five or six years, but that's not what the Republicans are after. They'll just as happily add to the deficit, only their spending and tax priorities will be different.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I think the main point is that voters aren't going to take the Republicans seriously when they cry about wasteful spending. In essence, the Republicans took a good issue for them off the table because of their actions over the past 8 years.

Agreed. Congressional Republicans should not be taken seriously in that regard. But there are a lot of fiscal conservatives (myself included) who have bitched about this on both sides. I could give a %$#@ who's doing it. Politicians are being irresponsible and playing a dangerous game of who can spend more, errrr, help more people without concern for the bottom line. It needs to stop. If enough citizens start bitching to their reps, it will happen.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

By the way, I did want to note that I was very happy to see Obama repeal the ban on stem cell research. It was an ill-informed ban that was instituted by Dubya that hindered a lot of research over the past 8 years. Good to see that we can get back to work on researching uses for stem cells.

[Flasch186]

agreed.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

So you would rather have no one advocate a fiscally sound position rather than have only a hypocrite advocate it? Isn't that a lot like cutting off your nose to spite your face?

This reminds me of a series of posts starting on page 9 and continuing on to page 10.

Not exactly the same thing, but close.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Somewhat tangential, but I continue to be amused by the GOPers trotting out to lambaste the budget. There's no intellectual honesty there. These are the same guys who voted for almost the same amount of money for Iraq and Afghanistan, and now they're complaining about spending money in the United States. Basically, they're un-American. Heh - I've waited 8 years to say that.

And for every bullshit pork project in the budget, there's a similar bullshit expenditure that went into Iraq reconstruction (or simply disappeared once it was offloaded from the plane in Iraq).

Boggles the mind.

I think the key phrase is "intellectual honesty" as opposed to hypocrisy.

The bottom-line, I suppose, depends on how you view politics. If you view it as a zero-sum game (as many single-issue voters do) then you'll get behind anyone who currently espouses your point of view, on the principles that gains in hand now trump everything.

If you view politics in terms of long-term trends and power-building, it can be dangerous and damaging to hitch your wagon to someone who's going to change their viewpoint based on how the wind is blowing.

I think it's sad, however, that the term "fiscal conservatism" has been watered-down to mean, essentially "have the government spend as absolutely little as possible, regardless of the consequences". What ever happened to fiscal prudence? What happened to fiscal accountability? Apparently no one in the GOP cares about that anymore.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I think it's sad, however, that the term "fiscal conservatism" has been watered-down to mean, essentially "have the government spend as absolutely little as possible, regardless of the consequences".

Where did you get that slanted definition? That's certainly not what it means.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Where did you get that slanted definition? That's certainly not what it means.

One could get that impression listening to the leading lights of the GOP and conservative movement.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

One could get that impression listening to the leading lights of the GOP and conservative movement.

Uhhhh, no. That's not what it means and you know it. Talk about intellectual honesty.

I could make a similarly unfair statement about the Democrat point-of-view, but it doesn't serve any real purpose other than to inflame partisan rhetoric.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Uhhhh, no. That's not what it means and you know it. Talk about intellectual honesty.

Enlighten me, then, as to what today's GOP and conservative movement mean by "fiscal conservatism".

[albionmoonlight]

Just FYI. Comparing Obama's approval ratings with other recent Presidents.

FiveThirtyEight.com: Politics Done Right: How's He Doing?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Enlighten me, then, as to what today's GOP and conservative movement mean by "fiscal conservatism".

It means to be as conservative as possible with spending while meeting the needs of the people. It also means to avoid wasteful spending in pursuing those needs.

I'd agree that the far right has let partisan politics stray them from that platform, but that doesn't change the meaning of that phrase.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Agreed. Congressional Republicans should not be taken seriously in that regard. But there are a lot of fiscal conservatives (myself included) who have bitched about this on both sides. I could give a %$#@ who's doing it. Politicians are being irresponsible and playing a dangerous game of who can spend more, errrr, help more people without concern for the bottom line. It needs to stop. If enough citizens start bitching to their reps, it will happen.

It won't happen or change though. We don't like Congress spending our money like crazy, but we do like it when our rep is bringing home the bacon. A catch-22 of sorts.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It means to be as conservative as possible with spending while meeting the needs of the people. It also means to avoid wasteful spending in pursuing those needs.

I'd agree that the far right has let partisan politics stray them from that platform, but that doesn't change the meaning of that phrase.

I see where the confusion is. I'm not saying the "real" meaning of "fiscal conservatism" has changed, I'm saying the "current" meaning of "fiscal conservatism" has changed (i.e. what you're suggesting in your second paragraph).

Much like what the "real" definition of "liberal" is vs. the "current" definition of "liberal".

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I see where the confusion is. I'm not saying the "real" meaning of "fiscal conservatism" has changed, I'm saying the "current" meaning of "fiscal conservatism" has changed (i.e. what you're suggesting in your second paragraph).

Much like what the "real" definition of "liberal" is vs. the "current" definition of "liberal".

I'd argue that the vast majority of Americans still follow the classic ideal of conservative or liberal thinking. It's just that the extreme right and extreme left seem to be taking the stage of late and distorting that perception. It's annoying to me as a constituent either way.

[albionmoonlight]

GOP Rep: “Our Goal Is To Bring Down Approval Numbers” For Dems | The Plum Line

“Our goal is to bring down approval numbers for [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and for House Democrats. That will take repetition. This is a marathon, not a sprint.”

I'm glad that the GOP isn't even pretending that its goal is to improve the lives of Americans.1

It makes it a lot easier for me to feel comfortable opposing them.

I do, however, feel bad for the GOP supporters out there. I have a feeling that most of you guys are pro-GOP and/or anti-Dem for the right reasons. But the people you actually have to support in order to be pro-GOP these days are so . . . depressing. Your soul has to die a little every time you see what they are doing in and to your name.

1I guess they might argue that they are looking out for America by trying to defeat the Dems and get back in charge, which will be all for the better in some way that they never can quite explain, but I guess we are all just supposed to trust them on that. If that is the case, then they are stupid. To have such a closed mind that you don't care a lick about what policies are being created, but care only that the right people are creating them, makes these GOP leaders very small and feebleminded men.

[Big Fo]

It's nice to see them finally being honest about the fact that they have so little to offer.

[larrymcg421]

What happened to the conservatives who believed that criticizing the President during wartime is unpatriotic because it endangers the troops by emboldening the enemy and giving them "aid and comfort"?

I sure miss those guys!

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'd argue that the vast majority of Americans still follow the classic ideal of conservative or liberal thinking. It's just that the extreme right and extreme left seem to be taking the stage of late and distorting that perception. It's annoying to me as a constituent either way.

I agree, but that's not my point.

However it may once have been defined, the phrase "fiscal conservatism", thanks to the public enunciations of GOP and conservative leaders, has come to be defined as little more than "have the government spend as little money as possible".

Now, I'm sure that parts of the rank-and-file GOP, especially the real fiscal conservatives who have been that way for ages and disliked the past 8 years as much as they disliked the 8 years before that, have a different, and more nuanced definition. But my point is that "fiscal conservatism" has become like the word "liberal". If you & I are talking, and use the word "liberal", we're expecting the more involved and nuanced definition of that word. However, out in the political arena and popular media (and this influences the thinking of many Americans), if you use the word "liberal", you've essentially just used a shortened version of the phrase "hippy tree-hugging socialist sheep-fucker."

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Latest research is out on the new spending bill. Nearly 2% of the bill is strictly earmarks. Very unfortunate that MO's Kit Bond is one of the largest offenders......

http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.ph...nes%20By%20TCS

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

What happened to the conservatives who believed that criticizing the President during wartime is unpatriotic because it endangers the troops by emboldening the enemy and giving them "aid and comfort"?

I sure miss those guys!

This made me laugh out loud. I wonder what Britney Spears thinks about it.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Latest research is out on the new spending bill. Nearly 2% of the bill is strictly earmarks. Very unfortunate that MO's Kit Bond is one of the largest offenders......

http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.ph...nes%20By%20TCS

There's a surprise (Kit Bond, I mean)...

SI

[larrymcg421]

How disappointing that Byrd faded to a 3rd place finish, especially when he had the home court advantage (Dem Pres).

[JPhillips]

OH NO, KIT BOND MADE SOME SPENDING DECISIONS INSTEAD OF A DEPT. OF TRANS. BUREAUCRAT! EARMARKS DON'T INCREASE SPENDING!

This obsession with earmarks is about the stupidest thing I've seen out of the media and political class. They all know how it really works, but they've decided to pretend earmarks are the central problem in Washington. Fucking depressing.

[ISiddiqui]

Kickbacks aren't that important because they aren't that much money? I think earmarks represent a massive problem in how our politicians act. Much rather have the executive branch decide what is good for the country as a whole, rather than the most senior legislatures getting kickbacks for their districts to help them get re-elected.

I mean really, for people who call politicians dishonest and only looking out for themselves, if you don't think earmarks are that big of a deal, I don't want to hear that from you.

[albionmoonlight]

It's actually a bit more complicated than that, JP. Just as fucking depressing though.

There are people in this country who really want that hidden, un-elected, accountable-to-the-whims-only-of-the-President-and-his-cabinet, DOT Bureaucrat making the decision instead of Congress. People who do not like the separation of powers and who want a more monarch-like executive.

Cheney was the most vocal and open proponent of this theory, but lots of people hold it. The more power that can be concentrated in one branch, the easier it is to take away our freedom and for the powers behind the throne to control that much more. If the only accountability moment for every relevant function of the government is one Presidental election every four years, then these people are very happy. That's what they want.

I think that these people present a real threat to personal freedom. No matter who is in charge at any given time, the structure of separated powers helps to ensure that decisions are made after deliberation and as in the open as possible.

"Earmarks Suck!" makes me sad b/c it is so good at helping take power away from Congress and giving it to the executive. CONGRESS is supposed to control the purse. The people subject to election and re-election. That's how the framers wanted it.

But, certain interests would love for that power to reside instead in the hands of un-elected bureaucrats not subject to any direct accountability. And, by getting everyone to shout "EARMARKS SUCK!" they get a lot of sheep to follow them.

Freedom isn't free, people. And those trying to take it from us have a lot of patience.

[albionmoonlight]

Dola--

When/if Gallup has a poll asking "Do you approve of earmarks," and 2% of the population says yes, they are talking about me. I realize that I am in the minority on this point.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Kickbacks aren't that important because they aren't that much money? I think earmarks represent a massive problem in how our politicians act. Much rather have the executive branch decide what is good for the country as a whole, rather than the most senior legislatures getting kickbacks for their districts to help them get re-elected.

I mean really, for people who call politicians dishonest and only looking out for themselves, if you don't think earmarks are that big of a deal, I don't want to hear that from you.

But don't they also represent a big problem in how we (the voters) act? I mean, you're kidding yourself if you don't think the politician that brings home the bacon doesn't have a major edge on that politican who refuses everything for their district.

It's the same thing with negative political ads. If you poll people about whether they like them or not, the number if certainly going to be very high against. But the politician that tries to take the high road will get eaten alive.

It's going to be hard to hold politicans accountable unless we change our own behavior as well.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Dola--

When/if Gallup has a poll asking "Do you approve of earmarks," and 2% of the population says yes, they are talking about me. I realize that I am in the minority on this point.

I'd love to see a poll like that for a specific district, asking if people approve of the specific funding and cross referenced with the generic question on earmarks. I have a feeling that the "Yes" answer on that first question would be alot higher than 2%.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

But don't they also represent a big problem in how we (the voters) act? I mean, you're kidding yourself if you don't think the politician that brings home the bacon doesn't have a major edge on that politican who refuses everything for their district.

I think you are right on that. We act like idiotic children. Loving the pork while decrying it.

However, it still has a corrupting influence and, along with gerrymandering is the key to incumbancy protection (compounded by the fact that earmarks get done with greater frequency the more seniority you have... its a perk to be able to be kept in your seat for longer).

Just because the people reward corruption doesn't necessarily mean we should just leave it alone. We have institutions that are not fully democratic because we realize the people can be idiots (hence why Senators have 6 year terms).

It's going to be hard to hold politicans accountable unless we change our own behavior as well.

We get the government we deserve?

Even then, on some issues, we should protect the people from their own destructive impulses (or rather, in simpler, more cliche terms "republic, not a democracy").

[JPhillips]

So the legislature controls 2% of spending decisions and that's unchecked corruption? Why shouldn't they get some say in distributing funds?

The problem is poor spending decisions, which come in regular and earmark flavors. I wouldn't argue that some spending is built on corruption, but earmarks as such are just a distraction. Cut out all the earmarks and it won't change things a bit.

To provide just one example, all the corruption that was, may still be, in the DoD budget was through executive channels. No congressman earmarked 2000 dollar toilet seats. I don't see any reason to believe that the executive is somehow less corrupt than the legislature.

[ISiddiqui]

2% of how much is the question (answer, a Hell of a lot). Also how are the kickbacks given out? Those with seniority get the pick. Why? Because its to keep the people who've been incumbents longest a greater share of the prizes. It's a self serving system.

There is a reason why candidate Obama was against it as well.

Earmarks are part of the broader problem. That's not the end of the issue, but definitely one of the beginnings.

As for the executive branch. I think it can look at individual spending projects and decide with less bias than a Senator that wants that project to help get re-elected. There are numerous cases of the Pentagon wanting a base closed, but some Congressman or Senator makes a stand and keeps it open. Why is that the executive branch's fault?

And I hate the reference The West Wing, but it gives a great demonstration of why these things seem to cost so much for the military. It's because of the exact specifications required (in the show it was for an ashtray to split into 3 equal pieces when it breaks rather than be in hundreds of pieces so during battle you don't have to worry about ashtray shards).

Not saying the executive branch is perfect, but I believe it is far more dispassionate about pet projects that help out one district.

[Buccaneer]

But if the Senate changes the current bill, the House would have to take it up again, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has warned that if that happens, she'll scrap the bill -- sending funding back to current levels, with no money for new programs, and eliminating all of the earmarks.

And the problem with this is...???

But to no one's surprise, the Senate passed the bill and the corruption continues. Obama could send a good message and veto this bill, which will go back to what Pelosi said. But Obama doesn't have the guts to do so (last year's bill is a stupid excuse).

As Imran alluded to, the primary directive of Congress is to get re-elected. That takes money and the primary investors in a campaign for re-election demand to be paid back, in various ways. A system of quid pro quo that only benefits the select few.

[sterlingice]

I know I'm one of the four people in the country who feel this way, but I would love to have publicly funded elections. That solves quite a few of these problems as you don't get a huge built in advantage to incumbency based on semi-legal bribes (i.e. if you donate to me, I'll award a contract to you)

SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I know I'm one of the four people in the country who feel this way, but I would love to have publicly funded elections. That solves quite a few of these problems as you don't get a huge built in advantage to incumbency based on semi-legal bribes (i.e. if you donate to me, I'll award a contract to you)

SI

I would be for it. It would also tone down the circus that we currently have. Based on the office you are running for, you get a certain amount of money. Just enough to run a few commercials, put up a few signs and so ons. People can get more info through the debates and policy history of each candidate.

Can even set it up so that if you don't get a certain percentage of the vote, you have to repay the funds.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

However, it still has a corrupting influence and, along with gerrymandering is the key to incumbancy protection

I'd say we see as much gerrymandering to benefit a party or potential allies as much as we see to protect a specific incumbent. That latter happens occasionally but the beneficiaries strike me as being people who aren't even in office yet as often as not.

A minor point to be sure, but something that caught my eye anyway.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I think that these people present a real threat to personal freedom. No matter who is in charge at any given time, the structure of separated powers helps to ensure that decisions are made after deliberation and as in the open as possible.

"Earmarks Suck!" makes me sad b/c it is so good at helping take power away from Congress and giving it to the executive. CONGRESS is supposed to control the purse. The people subject to election and re-election. That's how the framers wanted it.

But, certain interests would love for that power to reside instead in the hands of un-elected bureaucrats not subject to any direct accountability. And, by getting everyone to shout "EARMARKS SUCK!" they get a lot of sheep to follow them.

You and Ron Paul seem to be in complete agreement on this.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by cartman

Here's an example of one I worked on help getting passed that was short and to the point, and it became law.

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

I have to ask a stupid question beyond the Schoolhouse Rock version- how in this day and age do you get a bill to become a law?

SI

[duckman]

Originally Posted by sabotai

You and Ron Paul seem to be in complete agreement on this.

Got to love that crazy bastard!

[Galaxy]

Strange press conference (he sure does a lot) from Obama.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Strange press conference (he sure does a lot) from Obama.

What is the deal with the need for a teleprompter? Drives me nuts how he always looks back and forth exclusively at each teleprompter panel with ever looking straight forward. My speech coach always said that a guy who never looks you in the eye during a speech is likely feeding you a load of bull**** that he doesn't agree with. I'm not sure that's totally accurate in this case, but it doesn't annoy me any less.

[Flasch186]

you mean looks directly into Camera 1 which in this case doesnt have the words rolling on it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

What is the deal with the need for a teleprompter? Drives me nuts how he always looks back and forth exclusively at each teleprompter panel with ever looking straight forward. My speech coach always said that a guy who never looks you in the eye during a speech is likely feeding you a load of bull**** that he doesn't agree with. I'm not sure that's totally accurate in this case, but it doesn't annoy me any less.

So everyone reading off a teleprompter is lying?

[sterlingice]

Only if MBBF doesn't like them

SI

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

What is the deal with the need for a teleprompter? Drives me nuts how he always looks back and forth exclusively at each teleprompter panel with ever looking straight forward. My speech coach always said that a guy who never looks you in the eye during a speech is likely feeding you a load of bull**** that he doesn't agree with. I'm not sure that's totally accurate in this case, but it doesn't annoy me any less.

Wasn't actually talking about the press conference itself, but the topic and statements he made.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So everyone reading off a teleprompter is lying?

No, of course not, but if you've ever had a conversation with someone who never looks at you despite the fact that you're face to face, it's that same kind of feeling.

He's using the teleprompter at all times. Good speakers are able to read ahead or know what's coming and look forward on occasion. The back and forth motion that he currently uses it look like he's watching a tennis match while he's talking.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Only if MBBF doesn't like them

SI

Obviously a brutal overgeneralization. Dubya looked forward quite a bit. I thought he genuinely believed what he was saying, but was totally wrong about it in many cases. But it's easier to make this a partisan argument like you attempted to do than actually judge the speaking skills on their own merits.

There's a lot you can tell from the body language of an individual.