The Big Obama Administration Thread

Remove all ads!

I didn't know you voted for him. Those of us who voted for him are still pretty content; I guess those who didn't are still discontented. Must be standard politics in America. I thought it amusing to hear some conservatives commenting that they missed the good old days of Bill Clinton.

http://obama.wsj.com/article/03K06rSbmT0qK?q=Bill+Clinton

http://volokh.com/posts/1236325539.shtml

 

Martaug, those of us who voted for Obama with our eyes open are not only unsurprised by the way he conducts himself in office, but also quite pleased. I wasn't fooled. This is exactly the man I voted for. Now, if you don't like him, that's fine -- but you didn't like him before he was elected, either.

 

Yeah chandos, gotta love volokh, especially this quote about obama

Hehe worse than bush already.

 

You're being a little easy on yourself here martaug. You need to think through your punch line a little bit.

So Obama is supposed to not spend for the bailout but instead let the market regulate itself? He will be the one accused to have tanked the economy - by the party of the people who presided over it's descent into the current crisis by letting the market regulate itself. And of course, they will accuse him of socialism and of reckless market intervention when he imposes ethics by law on a market that showed that it hasn't any. Better still, the bailout is unlikely to show effects until after the mid term elections - so the R's will add insult to injury by campaigning against Obama on the lack of visible progress on the problem they have presided over for two presidential terms.

Or what about this: To save money, Obama could divert funds from Iraq and cut military spending? If Iraq goes downhill after a withdrawal, it will be Obama who will be blamed to have 'lost Iraq'. It's not about the infeasibility of the entire project from the onset. That is why Generals like Odierno - that is, Petraeus - are suggesting that Obama is withdrawing too soon - it's about preparing the 'stab in the back' narrative to hold themselves blameless, just in case - after all, wasn't the surge 'working' (another interesting narrative)?. Weren't they just brilliantly successful?

When cutting defence spending Obama will also be accused to weaken the military, something D's fear like the devil the holy water - by the party of the same people who over tasked same military to the breaking point (one, two, three, four ... extended tours to Iraq or Afghanistan anyone?) and ground down it's equipment in two wars. But let me guess - when the state is broke - bailing out the banks to prevent a second great depression is bad, but increasing military spending is good? Mind you, it's both about money you don't have.

Obama is damned if he spends, and damned if he doesn't. Better be clear about that when you rant about him being 'worse than Bush'. IMO he is a loooong, loooong shot away from that.

 

Actually ragusa, obama has proposed a 663.7 Billion dollar budget for the military in 2010.
Thats 130 Billion for the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan & the main budget of 533.7 Billion which is about 4% above 2009's budget.
So he is being military friendly so far, so that is 1 positive thing he has done that i can agree with.

Oh no, he wont get all the blame for the financial disaster, there is more than enough to go around for all.

I guess i should have been a little clearer in posting the quote.
It is by David Kopel from a piece on Volokh.com. http://volokh.com/posts/1236362199.shtml

It's short so i'll post the whole thing.

The more of his stuff i read the better i like him.

 

The question I ask is whether he has a choice to spend or not to spend.

Maybe it's time to watch The Grapes of Wrath again?

 

Yes he had a choice & he went with the one that included huge earmarks(from both democrats & republicans), & then lied about it when he said there where no earmarks in it!!

 

Martaug, there's a big difference between looking the other way and lying. I have yet to see Obama state that there are absolutely no earmarks in the legislation. That said, getting rid of earmarks was never part of Obama's campaign platform (that was McCain's platform, if you'll recall). While Obama does desire to reduce wasteful spending wherever possible, it should be pointed out that Obama doesn't get to write the actual bailout, nor does he have the time to make congress write it again by vetoing the bill. It should also be pointed out that there's a big difference between earmarks and pork. Not all earmarks are bad, and the vast majority of the earmarks in any piece of legislation directly pertain to the purpose of the bill* Earmarks for bridges to nowhere are the exception, not the rule.

* Which goes a long way in explaining why the total amount of "pork" in a bill can vary widely depending on who is doing the counting. Counting all earmarks while ignoring the distinction between earmarks which serve as spending guidelines that are within the scope of a bill, and unrelated items for pet projects for a representative's home district yields a deceptively high figure.

 

Well, this whole "earmark" BS is interesting again, which proves just how confused, Politically, the Republicans are. While it's amusing that they miss Clinton, instead of GWB, (that in itself is astounding), it's even more interesting to note that a number of Republicans added their own set of earmarks to the budget and are now blocking it because of their own requests. Is this just politics as usual or are they just plain fools?

 

It's politics as usual, Chandos. Why would you expect anything else?

 

Probably because we are facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. At what point do people decide to be truly serious?

 

Really drew?

Trying to say that all of these are "last years" business doesn't work either as it was the dems that refused to pass the bills last year. So as the democrats are so found of saying, you now "own it". Blame bush all you want but you passed it in obamas time so it's his.

 

Chandos, this may be the 'worst recession since the Great Depression', but we're still nowhere's near national crisis, despite what so many claim. At this point, no one's doubting the nation will recover, it's just a matter of how long and how hard. I expect politics as usual to end (on both sides) when there is a true national crisis. Short of that, as long as each side believes they have the only solution, and the other side will only make things worse, expect politics as usual.

 

Definition of a recession: When your neighbor loses his job.
Definition of a depression: When you lose your job.

 

No offense, martaug, but most of your quotes miss my point. Obama didn't write the stimulus -- and doesn't have the luxury of time to make a Congress that is barely able to work together write it again. More importantly, there's a time for the bully pulpit and there are times when using it would be a bad idea. On a piece of legislation as critical as the bailout, now isn't the time. Obama does want to see earmark reform and a reduction in wasteful projects, but he certainly never said he wants to see a ban...and it was certainly never a pillar of his campaign platform, but a triangulation. Regarding earmark disclosure, much of this has already been accomplished. While Obama can't take all the credit for it, we now have a lot more disclosure for earmark requests than we had before. For example, representatives once didn't have to sign their names on earmark requests. Now, they do.

 

Thought this was interesting, http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/10/veterans.health.insurance/index.html

I'm glad it was shot down so firmly.

 

Me too. We all know insurance compainies find reasons not to pay on claims. This would have been an unfortunate situtation for vets.

 

Hehe What about this one : http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/dan...i-raid-obamas-new-cio-takes-leave?partner=rss

More here http://www.rediff.com/news/2009/mar/13vivek-kundra-obamas-cio-goes-on-leave.htm

Now the last part wouldn't bother obama as this is the same he did for his wife with the hospital in chicago.

 

OK, let me try to wrap my head around this one. Obama's new CIO gets in trouble for something he did (allegedly, at least) prior to being tapped by Obama for the spot, he is asked to take leave from his position (pending, I assume, the results of the investigation), and this somehow reflects on negatively on Obama? Sorry, I just don't get it.

Link, please.

 

Drew, as I see it, this is embarassing on Obama and shows that apparently his picks could have been vetted better. It may cause him problems inasmuch as it is a delay at a time when he needs to act quickly. I don't think the quote from Marty that you picked made any assertions as to Obama himself, though, so I didn't quite get your response.