Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

[Omnis]

Sage, I think it would be better to examine government expenditure data.

 

[Keef]

I don't think he needs to do anything better. I just popped in here, analyzed the lists, and after 3 minutes I've come to the conclusion that the government has a habit of solving problems after they're already over. Which means they should not have done anything at all.

 

[L_Hamilton]

I don't think he needs to do anything better. I just popped in here, analyzed the lists, and after 3 minutes I've come to the conclusion that the government has a habit of solving problems after they're already over. Which means they should not have done anything at all.

Yup. 👍

 

[YSSMAN]

Frankly, I can't stand political science/scientists. It's the science of rationalizing fallacy.

Normally, I'd take offense to it, but I agree on some points. It really comes down to what field you specialize in, and the politicization of economics rarely works out all that well. Unfortunately, however, I don't think you can escape that anymore. I tend to focus more on foreign policy than domestic issues, and thats a whole 'nother can that brings up a lot of big problems. The big deal with all of Political Science is that it is always difficult to deal in absolutes. Certainly, you can talk about which plan you prefer or which you view as best, but ultimately you're likely to be proven wrong by time itself.

If anything, politics is never a constant. The fun part of Political Science, however, is the actual study of politics (in the hypothetical sense)... Seeing where it has come from, where it is now, and attempting to predict where it will go. Without it, I don't think I'd have nearly the same appreciation for William J. Bryan.

 

[FoolKiller]

Certainly, you can talk about which plan you prefer or which you view as best, but ultimately you're likely to be proven wrong by time itself.

This is why it is important for politicians to actually have principles. Principles do not change, do not waver, and are not up for negotiation. Unfortunately, off the top of my head I can only think of one active politician in office that fits that definition.

If anything, politics is never a constant.

Yeah, you have to keep switching (R) and (D) back and forth. Good thing nothing else changes though.

 

[Omnis]

This is why it is important for politicians to actually have principles. Principles do not change, do not waver, and are not up for negotiation. Unfortunately, off the top of my head I can only think of one active politician in office that fits that definition.


Yeah, you have to keep switching (R) and (D) back and forth. Good thing nothing else changes though.

So true.

Yssman, if you are dealing with plans that you think work best, you are not doing political science. You're either doing economics or diplomacy. Like I said, political "scientists" (artists, actually) are just there for the rationalizing of bad, yet popular choices.

 

[FoolKiller]

Yssman, if you are dealing with plans that you think work best, you are not doing political science. You're either doing economics or diplomacy.

Careful, my Economics professor in college brought up teh fact that a large number of fields are actually just another form of economics and admitted that he often tells all the political science students that politics is just a job that involves using smooth talk to discuss economics without data.

Apparently he found this to always get under the skin of the poli-sci guys. I can see how though as every poli-sci major I knew in college thought they would bring about change and good things, only to eventually become like everyone else before they got out of Student Government.

 

[YSSMAN]

Give or take, almost everything in politics deals in some way with economics. In my feminist theory class right now, actually, about 60% of our discussions have had something to do with economics, which is really strange.

The way things get mixed up, presumably, is partially to blame for the mess of politics we've had in the post-war era.

 

[FoolKiller]

Well, the list of economists has finally made it into the press, mainly because Cato paid to do that with a full page add in The New York Times.

Pardon my video montage and its source, but this is much easier than hunting down and linking each individual story.

 

[Omnis]

Yes, Obama is now waging The War on Markets.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/12/axelrod-this-white-house_n_166350.html

This white house won't be pushed around by no stinkin' market! We don't negotiate with prices!

These guys in the executive are either the dumbest lot Illinois has to offer, or they are misleading people intentionally.

 

[YSSMAN]

Wow, a link from the Huff Post! Sweet!

=-=-=-=-=

Hard to say what exactly is going on, I'm patiently waiting to see what happens.

 

[FoolKiller]

Yes, Obama is now waging The War on Markets.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/12/axelrod-this-white-house_n_166350.html

This white house won't be pushed around by no stinkin' market! We don't negotiate with prices!

These guys in the executive are either the dumbest lot Illinois has to offer, or they are misleading people intentionally.

Here's a good line:

"We can't set our clock according to reactions on the market, we take a long-range view"

Wouldn't a long range view recognize that this stimulus package is bad?

 

[Omnis]

You know what's funny? The democrats actually managed to increase spending in their bill under the pretense that they were reducing the bill's cost.

Check out this diagram: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/02/01/GR2009020100154.html

So this bill originally would have cost us less before they amended it in order to pass it. It would've cost the government more, but it cost us less. "Yeah, we'll cut the cost by 20%," let's say. And so they cut the tax break by 30 and increase the spending by 10. I can't believe they pulled that off...

Politicians always do this crap, though. They propose something very high and then dial it back just a tad to still pass it.

 

[FoolKiller]

You know what's funny? The democrats actually managed to increase spending in their bill under the pretense that they were reducing the bill's cost.

Check out this diagram: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/02/01/GR2009020100154.html

So this bill originally would have cost us less before they amended it in order to pass it. It would've cost the government more, but it cost us less. "Yeah, we'll cut the cost by 20%," let's say. And so they cut the tax break by 30 and increase the spending by 10. I can't believe they pulled that off...

Politicians always do this crap, though. They propose something very high and then dial it back just a tad to still pass it.

Why do you think it wasn't available for public review before now? I should have been able to Google this so that I can view the entier document and then send a point by point description of my problems to my congressmen, if I had chose to do that, but I couldn't.

 

[YSSMAN]

*Ahem*

The Republicans were the ones who were pushing to get the things cut, transferred, and all that jazz... Not the Democrats [EDIT: forgot that the "Blue Dog" Democrats were fighting it as well]. Certainly, if they would have done the right thing by powering it through congress without the thin veil of "bipartisanship," we wouldn't have had those changes in the first place.

RE: Text of the Bill

It was available last week, on THOMAS just like every bill that moves through congress. HR 1 can be found here, and the Senate version S. 1 can be found here. Also, I believe this is the list of amendments to the Senate Bill, which will be returning to the House within the next day or so.

As I recall, the text of the Senate bill rings somewhere in the neighborhood of 600+ pages, and if you've ever attempted to read congressional literature before, you know how difficult it can be to get anything out of it.

Texts of both versions of the bill have been available for a while, per laws requiring increased transparency for congress. As a matter of fact, if you visit THOMAS, you can search through what your congressman or Senators have been up to. Its actually a pretty neat tool. If you know the name of any bill or proposal, its actually very easy to find it, be it through Google or THOMAS (Google will search congressional records).

 

[FoolKiller]

RE: Text of the Bill

It was available last week,

Final language of the bill was not made available until almost 11:00 PM last night. Tuesday the House voted unanimously to not vote on any stimulus bill that did not have the Final language available for at least 48 hours.
You can find it on page H1096 of the public record.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=H1096&dbname=2009_record

Mr. LEWIS of California moves to instruct the managers on the part of the House that they shall not record their approval of the final conference agreement (as such term is used in clause 12(a)(4) of rule XXII of the Rules of the House of Representatives) unless the text of such agreement has been available to the managers in an electronic, searchable, and downloadable form for at least 48 hours prior to the time described in such clause.

They gave roughly 10 hours. There were reporters complaining about it on the radio this morning and from Readthestimulus.org:

The final language has been posted; you can find links to the various docs at the Speaker's website.

The total size of the four major files is over 100MB, and consists of 1419 pages. Three of the four files are huge "scanned" PDFs, meaning they were created by printing the original document and then scanning it in again --- and therefore contain no real "text" that can be easily searched. This will make our parsing process difficult and more time consuming, so we most likely won't have our versions ready until midday tomorrow. But we'll see...

So, no 48 hours and no fully searchable text. Nice.

Post all the old versions you want, but the fact remains that what is being voted on this morning (which is what Omnis and I are referring to) was only made available to all of Congress and the public last night. I know I can't read 1400+ pages of legal jargon on no sleep in under 10 hours. Can you?

And as I prepare to post this the vote is ten minutes away.

 

[YSSMAN]

Ah, I misunderstood what you were talking about then, my apologies. I was unaware that the House had decided to make that move yesterday.

I believe the most-disappointing thing I heard that was removed from the bill was the executive pay caps for banks taking TARP money, and I want to know who cut it.

 

[Keef]

Yes, Obama is now waging The War on Markets.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/12/axelrod-this-white-house_n_166350.html

This white house won't be pushed around by no stinkin' market! We don't negotiate with prices!

These guys in the executive are either the dumbest lot Illinois has to offer, or they are misleading people intentionally.

It sounds like pretty soon we'll know what is expected of us.

EDIT: A day late and a dollar short.

Why do you think it wasn't available for public review before now? I should have been able to Google this so that I can view the entier document and then send a point by point description of my problems to my congressmen, if I had chose to do that, but I couldn't.

I know the government's system of checks and balances, but what checks and balances are there betwee We The People and the government as a whole? I realize the government keeps certain things secret, sometimes for a long time, like issues that could effect the safety and security of We The People, but besides that isn't everything supposed to be available for public review?

 

[FoolKiller]

I know the government's system of checks and balances, but what checks and balances are there betwee We The People and the government as a whole? I realize the government keeps certain things secret, sometimes for a long time, like issues that could effect the safety and security of We The People, but besides that isn't everything supposed to be available for public review?

Yes.

And really the Supreme Court is supposed to be the check and balance between the government and us as all Constitutional challenges to laws go through them.

Already two branches have to agree to get anything done (three if you count Congress as two entities) and then if we the people disagree with them the courts have to make the final call.

And every politician knows that if they really screw over every one of us they will be out of a job.

 

[Keef]

And every politician knows that if they really screw over every one of us they will be out of a job.

That depends on the gumption of we the people. I'll stand up, and you would too, and it seems many of the people posting in this section would. But I know a lot of people that have a habit of following orders, even if those orders are wrong.

 

[YSSMAN]

Well, my guess is that if it "doesn't work," however you wish to quantify it, the Republicans will pick up quite a few of the seats in the House. The Senate, that may be a bit more difficult to win back. But, as even Limbaugh has pointed out, if the stimulus does in fact "work," its game over for the Republicans for at least a decade or so.

Personally, I don't care if there is a D or an R in front of someone's name as long as they're for the most part considering both sides of the issue and picking what is best for my district, my state, and those of us who live there.

 

[Danoff]

Personally, I don't care if there is a D or an R in front of someone's name as long as they're for the most part considering both sides of the issue and picking what is best for my district, my state, and those of us who live there.

But what's best for you is so clearly not what any of them have in mind. I have not heard anything that even remotely resembles what's best for you.

 

[Solid Fro]

Obama's cluster****:

 

[Danoff]

I'm glad a few people are out there standing up to this nonsense. I hope the american people are taking note of what kind of spending the democrats try to get through the moment they have control.

 

[nk4e]

I'm glad a few people are out there standing up to this nonsense. I hope the american people are taking note of what kind of spending the democrats try to get through the moment they have control.

I think some are worried about were they are about to live at the moment.

 

[FoolKiller]

Obama's cluster****:

Handwritten notes? No wonder they couldn't provide a proper draft. I would be fired if I attempted to present anything like that to my boss.

I think some are worried about were they are about to live at the moment.

If this passes their kids will worry too.

 

[nk4e]

If this passes their kids will worry too.

I am worrying about the future myself...

 

[YSSMAN]

I'm glad a few people are out there standing up to this nonsense. I hope the american people are taking note of what kind of spending the democrats try to get through the moment they have control.

...Lest they forget what the Republicans spent in the last eight years...

My Congessman voted "No" on both versions of the bill, which seems to be a good move on his behalf. He summed up his vote pretty well this afternoon:

“There are some good things in this bill that will help in the short term, but there is not enough to encourage a sustainable economic recovery. I wish this bill did more for the people of Michigan, who have suffered in this economy more than any other state. I fear that our great state’s economy may be in worse shape ten years from now because of the short-sighted spending in the bill, and the huge increase it will cause in the national debt. I was disappointed by the lack of investments in research and innovation, which are sustainable job creators. Also, federal programs that help Michigan manufacturing firms survive and expand, such as the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, were shortchanged in the legislation.

“The need for real economic stimulus is absolutely urgent. I have heard from many people in West Michigan who are struggling to find work, in danger of losing their homes, and having trouble making ends meet at their businesses. I certainly hope that Democrats and Republicans can come together soon to craft a more focused, meaningful stimulus package that will help Americans get on their feet right now.”

And to that, I can completely agree with him.

 

[FoolKiller]

Here is an interesting read about President Obama and The Expectation Gap.

http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/Turns-out-that-no-he-cant-39358202.html

Turns out that no, he can't
By Gene Healy, Examiner Columnist.
- 2/10/09

Last week was a tough one for Barack Obama.
The president’s choice for HHS secretary withdrew on Tuesday. It turned out that Tom Daschle, who considered himself up to the task of redesigning the most complex and fastest-growing sector of our economy, had trouble figuring out his own taxes.

By the end of the week, Obama was facing growing resistance to key parts of his $800-plus billion stimulus package. Friday found the new president recuperating at Camp David.

Welcome to the NFL, Barack: There will be many more tough weeks to come.

The “Hopefest 2009” aura that surrounded Obama’s inauguration made him appear unstoppable. But the smart money says that by 2012, Obama will look a lot more like Jimmy Carter than FDR. That’s not because the new president is incompetent; it’s because he’s signed up for an impossible job.

Our Constitution’s framers had a modest view of presidential responsibility: the president was, in Washington’s phrase, the mere “chief magistrate,” and his main job was faithful execution of the laws.

But today, Americans look to the president as the Savior-in-Chief, a figure who will heal what ails us—whether it’s unemployment, hurricanes, divisiveness, or spiritual malaise. When it comes to the presidency, we demand what we cannot have and, as a result, we usually get what we do not like.

Political scientists have a term for the vast distance between what the public expects of the president and what he can realistically deliver: the “expectations gap.” And no presidential candidate in living memory has done as much as Obama to stoke public expectations for the office—which were insanely high to begin with.

“Yes we can!” was the preferred hosanna of hope in the revival-tent atmosphere of the Obama campaign. We can, Obama promised, create a “new kind of politics,” “end the age of oil in our time,” deliver “a complete transformation of the economy,” and even “create a kingdom right here on earth.” With the presidency, it seems, all things are possible.

Post-election polls suggested that Americans bought the sales pitch. Eight in 10 expected Obama to improve conditions for the poor, 70 percent to improve education and the environment, and 60 percent counted on him to create a robust economy.

Obama entered office with a 79 percent favorability rating, the highest score of any newly elected president since, well, Jimmy Carter.

As the Carter experience suggests, in presidential politics, great expectations often lead to crashing disappointments. Every post-WWII president has faced what scholar Barbara Hinckley called “the decay curve”—the decline in popularity that occurs as the public recognizes that the president can’t deliver the miracles he’s promised.

String them together, and presidential approval graphs look like an EKG on a patient being repeatedly shocked to life—“clear!”—and then fading out again. Just as popularity tends to fade within each president’s tenure, average approval ratings have been in decline from one president to the next for most of the modern era.

You’d never know it from his budget-busting economic nostrums, but Obama has taken office in an era of limits. And when he fails to fully heal our financial troubles, fix health care, teach our children well, provide balm for our itchy souls, and so forth, his hope-addled rhetoric will seem all the more grating, and the public will increasingly come to see him as the source of all American woes.

Perhaps, then, we ought to drop the notion of president as Savior-in-Chief. Our Constitution's Framers thought the president had an important job, but they never looked to him to heal all the nation's wounds and save the national soul.

Their vision of the presidency may be unromantic, but at least it's realistic (not to mention cheaper). Until we return to the framers' modest, businesslike view of the presidency, we shouldn’t expect any president, however well-intentioned, to be “a uniter, not a divider” in American life.

And it seems the president was in Camp David and is going to Chicago tomorrow. It hasn't been a full month yet. Didn't Bush get constantly accused of too many "vacation" days at Camp David?

CHANGE!!!

 

[Omnis]

Boehner brought it with him.



What Ron Paul has to say about it: