Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

How would you vote in the 2008 US Presidential Election?

  • Obama-Biden (Democrat)

    Votes: 67 59.3%
  • McCain-Palin (Republican)

    Votes: 18 15.9%
  • Barr-Root (Libertarian)

    Votes: 14 12.4%
  • Nader-Gonzales (Independent-Ecology Party / Peace and Freedom Party)

    Votes: 5 4.4%
  • McKinney-Clemente (Green)

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Baldwin-Castle (Constitution)

    Votes: 7 6.2%
  • Gurney-? (Car & Driver)

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Other...

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    113
  • Poll closed .
Except that you're not. Didn't you vote for Ron Paul? Lol. It's one thing to be a hardcore 'kos type, but you confuse me because you seem to have a big mixture of attitudes that go together about as well as oil and vinegar.

I did vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, as did my Mother as well. But, we both voted for Obama in the final election -- go figure. I know my politics don't make a whole lot of sense, because I'm all over the place on most issues. I'm all about having the best answer possible to help the greatest amount of people, and unfortunately that causes me to pick and choose quite a bit from various parts of the spectrum. I do not like really hard swings to the left or right, as I have a hard time believing that one particular view is going to be 110% correct about everything, all the time. Overall, different tests seem to peg me in different places. Using the Nolan Chart, that pegs me as a "Centrist Conservative" and another as a "Leftist Libertarian." Weird. Generally, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) and I tend to agree on most things... So take what you can out of that.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, but in this case you're buying into the politicians' assuming that there's an answer-- that there's an action that must be taken.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but they are neither that important nor that powerful.
 
So, I am reading through the text of the speech right now and will comment as I go.

The concern is that if we do not restart lending in this country, our recovery will be choked off before it even begins.

You see, the flow of credit is the lifeblood of our economy. The ability to get a loan is how you finance the purchase of everything from a home to a car to a college education; how stores stock their shelves, farms buy equipment, and businesses make payroll.
Odd, I didn't know lending had stopped. UnoMOTO bought a house and a truck, I have a friend that just bought a house and moves in on March 14th. I get ads from various banks offering me cards, auto loans, and mortgages. It looks like lending is moving along just fine.

Or is he talking about lending to people that cannot afford to pay for a loan? Because that is not the lifeblood of our country. That is the poison that is killing it. Quit giving bad loans and making it easier for people to get bad loans. It is simple: A certain portion of the population cannot afford to own a home.

Second, we have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and refinance their mortgages. It's a plan that won't help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining home values — Americans who will now be able to take advantage of the lower interest rates that this plan has already helped bring about. In fact, the average family who refinances today can save nearly $2,000 per year on their mortgage.
Um, if they are responsible, or their financial situation hasn't taken a drastic change why are they at risk of foreclosure? So, we are forcing banks to allow people they don't trust to refinance? If they could refinance before and were responsible they would have. If they suddenly have one less income then perhaps changing houses, or just getting out of the house altogether, would be their better, and responsible, option?

I'm sorry but if the problem is because of bad loans then suddenly helping a bad loan stay in place is not helping anyone.

Third, we will act with the full force of the federal government to ensure that the major banks that Americans depend on have enough confidence and enough money to lend even in more difficult times. And when we learn that a major bank has serious problems, we will hold accountable those responsible, force the necessary adjustments, provide the support to clean up their balance sheets, and assure the continuity of a strong, viable institution that can serve our people and our economy.
So, they will destroy the value of the dollar, or steal dollars from average American taxes, until it becomes obvious that won't help and then they will swoop in and start ordering private businesses around to save them?

Why don't you just nationalize? Your claiming to have the authority to act as if you already have.

I intend to hold these banks fully accountable for the assistance they receive, and this time, they will have to clearly demonstrate how taxpayer dollars result in more lending for the American taxpayer. This time, CEOs won't be able to use taxpayer money to pad their paychecks or buy fancy drapes or disappear on a private jet. Those days are over
So, you admit that you made a bad vote in the fall?

Still, this plan will require significant resources from the federal government — and yes, probably more than we've already set aside. But while the cost of action will be great, I can assure you that the cost of inaction will be far greater, for it could result in an economy that sputters along for not months or years, but perhaps a decade. That would be worse for our deficit, worse for business, worse for you, and worse for the next generation. And I refuse to let that happen.
Once again, there are a few hundred economists who strongly disagree with you, Mr. President. Why don't you address their concerns?

So I ask this Congress to join me in doing whatever proves necessary. Because we cannot consign our nation to an open-ended recession.
But you are.

And to ensure that a crisis of this magnitude never happens again,
You and all the Dems and Republicans are stepping down?

I ask Congress to move quickly on legislation that will finally reform our outdated regulatory system. It is time to put in place tough, new common-sense rules of the road so that our financial market rewards drive and innovation, and punishes short-cuts and abuse.
Wait, I'm confused. This doesn't compute. More regulation? So, you are just going to jump all over private industry, create new laws full of loop holes that no politician ever actually read, and you think it will help?

The recovery plan and the financial stability plan are the immediate steps we're taking to revive our economy in the short term.
Short-term, but recovery.gov shows nothing even been handed out and reported on until July.

But the only way to fully restore America's economic strength is to make the long-term investments that will lead to new jobs, new industries, and a renewed ability to compete with the rest of the world.
But shouldn't those investments be done by the private industry? Is that even the government's responsibility? Personally, I think any new investment or industry headed by the US Government will be out performed by a foreign privately funded company.

I reject the view that says our problems will simply take care of themselves; that says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity.
And that is why you fail at Constitution 101.

For history tells a different story. History reminds us that at every moment of economic upheaval and transformation, this nation has responded with bold action and big ideas. In the midst of civil war, we laid railroad tracks from one coast to another that spurred commerce and industry. From the turmoil of the Industrial Revolution came a system of public high schools that prepared our citizens for a new age. In the wake of war and depression, the GI Bill sent a generation to college and created the largest middle class in history. And a twilight struggle for freedom led to a nation of highways, an American on the moon, and an explosion of technology that still shapes our world.

In each case, government didn't supplant private enterprise; it catalyzed private enterprise. It created the conditions for thousands of entrepreneurs and new businesses to adapt and to thrive.
And this is why you fail at Economy 101. You are proud of the public high schools? You just said they were failing.

So I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America.
So, you are artificially affecting the markets? Bad government! Bad! Free market, does that mean anything to you?

Here's an idea, buy up a bunch of oil and just put it back in the ground or something so the supply drops and prices of gas sky rocket. That would work too. Just leave the markets alone. They are not a part of the government's jurisdiction. Do you not get what you actually do?

As for our auto industry, everyone recognizes that years of bad decision-making and a global recession have pushed our automakers to the brink. We should not, and will not, protect them from their own bad practices. But we are committed to the goal of a retooled, re-imagined auto industry that can compete and win. Millions of jobs depend on it. Scores of communities depend on it. And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it.
Oh, my God!!! You are right. Our schools are failing, particularly the ones you went to.



I need to take a break after that...




OK.
Already, we have done more to advance the cause of health care reform in the last 30 days than we have in the last decade. When it was days old, this Congress passed a law to provide and protect health insurance for 11 million American children whose parents work full time. Our recovery plan will invest in electronic health records and new technology that will reduce errors, bring down costs, ensure privacy, and save lives. It will launch a new effort to conquer a disease that has touched the life of nearly every American by seeking a cure for cancer in our time. And it makes the largest investment ever in preventive care, because that is one of the best ways to keep our people healthy and our costs under control.
All I can hear is spend, spend, spend, spend. Somehow I see me losing money over this.

It's a commitment that's paid for in part by efficiencies in our system that are long overdue. And it's a step we must take if we hope to bring down our deficit in the years to come.
So, what is the other part? And when has government ever been efficient?

I suffer no illusions that this will be an easy process. It will be hard. But I also know that nearly a century after Teddy Roosevelt first called for reform, the cost of our health care has weighed down our economy and the conscience of our nation long enough. So let there be no doubt: Health care reform cannot wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year.
So higher taxes in 2010? Why do I get a feeling that my actual out of pocket expenses will be more?

The third challenge we must address is the urgent need to expand the promise of education in America.
Actually it is not a promise, unless you consider the required part.

In a global economy where the most valuable skill you can sell is your knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity — it is a prerequisite.

Right now, three-quarters of the fastest-growing occupations require more than a high school diploma. And yet, just over half of our citizens have that level of education. We have one of the highest high school dropout rates of any industrialized nation. And half of the students who begin college never finish.
I definitely don't see us violating any promise here. College is voluntary. Dropping out is voluntary. People get beyond the required point and stop on their own. I know lets force a college degree on everyone.

That is why it will be the goal of this administration to ensure that every child has access to a complete and competitive education — from the day they are born to the day they begin a career.
That's it? Everyone has access to that now.

Already, we have made a historic investment in education through the economic recovery plan. We have dramatically expanded early childhood education and will continue to improve its quality, because we know that the most formative learning comes in those first years of life. We have made college affordable for nearly 7 million more students. And we have provided the resources necessary to prevent painful cuts and teacher layoffs that would set back our children's progress.
So throwing more money at a failing system? Oh, and how is college not affordable? Seriously, who can't get a federal student loan? I couldn't afford college up front. That is why I am paying off a loan now.

Seems like the only credit people aren't taking is the kind that can actually help.

And so tonight, I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be community college or a four-year school; vocational training or an apprenticeship. But whatever the training may be, every American will need to get more than a high school diploma.
So, promise rings are the new education plan? Sweet! Will you be my BFF too?

And dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It's not just quitting on yourself, it's quitting on your country — and this country needs and values the talents of every American. That is why we will provide the support necessary for you to complete college and meet a new goal: By 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.
Followed by a pep talk!!! Yay! Go team!

Seriously, your plan is personal responsibility? Where were you when Bill Cosby was talking about it. Why is it that the only time you talk about that is when you know all the money in the world won't make kids stay in school? Why don't we apply this personal responsibility principle to everything?

You want people to really commit to this? Take away any government programs for them to fall back on when they don't.

These education policies will open the doors of opportunity for our children. But it is up to us to ensure they walk through them. In the end, there is no program or policy that can substitute for a mother or father who will attend those parent/teacher conferences, or help with homework after dinner, or turn off the TV, put away the video games, and read to their child. I speak to you not just as a president, but as a father when I say that responsibility for our children's education must begin at home.
Again, good talk. Now make it so that it is obvious that failure to do this will not be met with assistance. Telling a man to fish but giving away free fish to anyone that doesn't is just stupid.

There is, of course, another responsibility we have to our children. And that is the responsibility to ensure that we do not pass on to them a debt they cannot pay.
Uh... I think I need another break.

No, I don't.

WHAT!?!

What did you just do? Twice! You, sir, have been involved in a huge percentage of that debt yourself.

With the deficit we inherited, the cost of the crisis we face, and the long-term challenges we must meet, it has never been more important to ensure that as our economy recovers, we do what it takes to bring this deficit down.
Yeah, blame it on Bush. War spending is the only thing you can say your hands are clean on.

I'm proud that we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks, and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities.
Based on your historical knowledge I am afraid I don't trust what you think are national priorities.

Lets start with debts, common defense, and general welfare. You put a dime on anything else and you fail again.

Yesterday, I held a fiscal summit where I pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office. My administration has also begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs. As you can imagine, this is a process that will take some time. But we're starting with the biggest lines. We have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade.
Cut the deficit or deficit spending?

You identified $2 trillion you can save over the next ten years? First, your term is four, not ten. Second, you just added $2 trillion to the debt, so you save nothing. You want to save $2 trillion now? Stop the rest of the bailouts and your stimulus plan.

In this budget, we will end education programs that don't work and end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don't need them. We'll eliminate the no-bid contracts that have wasted billions in Iraq, and reform our defense budget so that we're not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don't use. We will root out the waste, fraud and abuse in our Medicare program that doesn't make our seniors any healthier, and we will restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas.
You're going to end public schools? Awesome! And a fair and balanced tax code would involve a flat consumption tax. I don't see you doing that, but then what you call equal and what I call equal are two different things.

In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. But let me perfectly clear, because I know you'll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime. In fact, the recovery plan provides a tax cut — that's right, a tax cut — for 95 percent of working families. And these checks are on the way
Yep, there it is. Nothing fair and balanced about that.

To preserve our long-term fiscal health, we must also address the growing costs in Medicare and Social Security. Comprehensive health care reform is the best way to strengthen Medicare for years to come. And we must also begin a conversation on how to do the same for Social Security, while creating tax-free universal savings accounts for all Americans.
Step 1) Tell Pelosi to shove it.

Wait, isn't this what President Bush was talking about doing and you all made him out to be some villain?

Finally, because we're also suffering from a deficit of trust, I am committed to restoring a sense of honesty and accountability to our budget. That is why this budget looks ahead 10 years and accounts for spending that was left out under the old rules — and for the first time, that includes the full cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. For seven years, we have been a nation at war. No longer will we hide its price.
I will believe this when I see it.

We are now carefully reviewing our policies in both wars, and I will soon announce a way forward in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war.
But you said you had a plan when running for election. Did you learn some things after becoming president and realize it isn't as easy as out within a year?

And with our friends and allies, we will forge a new and comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat al-Qaida and combat extremism. Because I will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people from safe havens half a world away.
This should actually be interesting.

Their resolve must be our inspiration. Their concerns must be our cause. And we must show them and all our people that we are equal to the task before us.

I know that we haven't agreed on every issue thus far, and there are surely times in the future when we will part ways. But I also know that every American who is sitting here tonight loves this country and wants it to succeed. That must be the starting point for every debate we have in the coming months, and where we return after those debates are done. That is the foundation on which the American people expect us to build common ground.
It is hard to build a common ground when hundreds of experts disagree with you on something and you pretend you didn't notice. Your way, Mr. President, is not the only way and the sooner you recognize that and listen to people who actually know what they are talking about the sooner you might actually be able to pull off something that meets all those campaign stop (really you own, you can stop now) inspiration stories. The people in those stories did things on their own, without the government interfering, with the exception of the little girl whose state government and school district failed to do their jobs. What I take away from your stories is that when people do it on their own they succeed. When government is in charge it fails.

And if we do — if we come together and lift this nation from the depths of this crisis; if we put our people back to work and restart the engine of our prosperity; if we confront without fear the challenges of our time and summon that enduring spirit of an America that does not quit, then someday years from now our children can tell their children that this was the time when we performed, in the words that are carved into this very chamber, "something worthy to be remembered."
If you actually pull that off I will be amazed.

But as we look back on history now, I have a feeling that our children's children will look back and say this is the time when President Obama made an economic recession worse.
 
Overall, I felt Obama sounded genuine in his ambitions and he seems to have very good intentions. But a horrible execution.

Also, YSSMAN, it seems you lack principle in your politics, just like politicians. If you had guidelines for yourself to follow you wouldn't be wavering in and out of ideas, you would be saying the same thing every time. Whether other people agree with it or not, at least you'd be principled.

I'm not saying I am, because I catch myself contradicting myself all the time. It's something we should all work on.
 
Overall, I felt Obama sounded genuine in his ambitions and he seems to have very good intentions. But a horrible execution.
At the rate he's going I can get an Obamaisms calendar started for 2010.
 
So, wait, Germany has to stop making cars?

France as well. If you consider that steam engined contraption made in 1769 by Nicolas Cugnot to be an automobile. Some sources say China invented it as well.

Next he'll be saying that America should abandon autoracing, since they invented it. You rebellious colonials you. ;)
 
So, wait, Germany has to stop making cars?
France as well. If you consider that steam engined contraption made in 1769 by Nicolas Cugnot to be an automobile. Some sources say China invented it as well.
No, no, no. He said cannot walk away from it. So, no Germany/France/whoever (definitely not America) cannot stop.

Next he'll be saying that America should not abandon autoracing, since they invented it. You rebellious colonials you. ;)
Seriously, I think the picture Omnis posted of W taking off his face and putting on an Obama face is literal.
 
Last edited:
Oh, I get it. He's saying that we shouldn't be giving Detroit bailout money. Okay.
Well, if we go by what he actually said, then no he doesn't think we should.

But I don't think he knows what he was actually saying.
 
And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it.

Oh, my God!!! You are right. Our schools are failing, particularly the ones you went to.


When will I be able to buy Obamaism books, calenders, and birthday cards at my local mall?
 
Seriously, I think the picture Omnis posted of W taking off his face and putting on an Obama face is literal.

Yep, It's true. Socialism with a fresh new face.

Seriously, though. People all over the nation need a serious lesson on the difference between credit and capital, and from where they are derived.
 
Yep, It's true. Socialism with a fresh new face.

Seriously, though. People all over the nation need a serious lesson on the difference between credit and capital, and from where they are derived.

How about we start with econ 101. Supply and demand. The number of people that don't understand that and are in political office is simply staggering.
 
Look at that, you are plural. Or not a magazine

How about we start with econ 101. Supply and demand. The number of people that don't understand that and are in political office is simply staggering.
You mean, like there is a huge supply of politicians with little demand for them, yet we pay a lot more than they are worth?
 
HEADLINE: BIDEN DOESN'T KNOW COMPUTERS, INTERNET NUMBERS.



Where is the outrage? You know, because Biden is second in line to be the President of the United States. How can he not know The Messiah's "website number?" What else does Biden not know? How to send an email? The Bush Doctrine? The difference between a Blackberry and a Sectera Edge?

Oh mah GAWD!
 
You beat me to posting it.

I am curious why Bush was villified for not using proper pronunciation but these guys get a free pass for false facts and old man ignorance.
 
You were a bit late posting that, lol. Even the Liberals were making fun of that more than a week ago.

Good ol' Uncle Joe, he'll always have something for us to laugh at.
 
I was reading an article on how the recession has affected people's sleep. And I found this to be pretty funny:

"The sleep-deprived may try pushing through fatigue to get their jobs done or developing last-minute solutions to urgent crises (think Congress)."

Why You're Not Sleeping
 
Looks like even Democrats are not happy with Obama's love for czars. If there is anything to these concerns it shows that Obama really doesn't care about the Constitution.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-obama-czars5-2009mar05,0,1528130.story
President Obama's czar system concerns some
He has 'super aides' for healthcare, the economy, energy and urban issues, with more to come -- prompting some lawmakers and groups to worry that he may be concentrating power and bypassing Congress.

By Tom Hamburger and Christi Parsons
March 5, 2009

Reporting from Washington -- As President Obama names more policy czars to his White House team -- high-level staff members who will help oversee the administration's top initiatives -- some lawmakers and Washington interest groups are raising concerns that he may be subverting the authority of Congress and concentrating too much power in the presidency.

The idea of these "super aides," who will work across agency lines to push the president's agenda, is not a new one. President Nixon may have named the first "czar" with his appointment of William E. Simon to handle the 1970s energy crisis. Other presidents have followed suit.

But none has embraced the concept, presidential scholars say, to the extent that Obama has.

He has appointed special advisors who will work from inside the White House on healthcare, the economy, energy and urban issues, with more to come.

"The challenges coming at us are bigger than anything we've seen since the Depression," said Jim Messina, deputy White House chief of staff. "It's crucial to have people in these positions who can help us meet them head-on."

But some lawmakers and outside experts fear that Obama is setting up a system that is not subject to congressional oversight and creates the potential for conflict among his many advisors.

Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) became concerned enough to send a cautionary letter to Obama last week. At times, he said, past White House staffers have assumed duties that should be the responsibility of officials cleared through the Senate confirmation process. He cited President Bush's naming of homeland security czar Tom Ridge as an example.

"They rarely testify before congressional committees and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege," Byrd wrote of past czars and White House staffers in similar positions. At times, he said, one outcome has been to "inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability."

"The rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances," Byrd said.

It's far too early to tell whether Obama's quest for efficiency will lead to overstepping the bounds of presidential authority, but the latest appointment announcement could offer a few clues.

This week, he named two women to lead his effort to overhaul the nation's healthcare system. One of them, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, was tapped to be Health and Human Services secretary. At her confirmation hearings, senators will be able to probe her views on health policy and demand detailed documentation of her credentials.

But the other, Nancy-Ann DeParle, who was named health czar, can begin work right away, without outside review of her abilities or opinions. And whereas lawmakers can ask Sebelius for testimony in the future and control her budget, DeParle may remain largely outside the gaze of Congress.

Paul Light of New York University, an expert on the presidency, said Byrd has a valid constitutional concern about Obama's use of czars. Light too is worried about Obama's expansion of the czar system, but his apprehension is focused on more-practical concerns.

He points out that previous presidential czars became frustrated because they had no permanent staff, and their power was diffuse and unclear. Besides, he said, "there are so many czars in this White House, they'll be constantly bumping in to each other."

In addition to naming DeParle to coordinate healthcare policy, Obama has tapped Carol Browner to be White House energy czar, a post that could overlap with the functions of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Energy Department and other agencies. Adolfo Carrion Jr., a former Bronx borough president, is urban affairs czar, a job that may dovetail with the functions of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. And Paul A. Volcker, Obama's big-picture economic czar, must coordinate with the Treasury Department and other agencies.

The confusion about competing roles played by czars and their Cabinet counterparts was on display Monday as White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs tried to explain how authority would be divided between DeParle and Sebelius as they steer health reform through Congress.

At first, he declared that DeParle "will be in charge." Then he acknowledged a role for Sebelius and others.

"I think obviously this is something that spans across many platforms, not unlike, say, something like energy independence, that a lot of people that work in this building and in different agencies will be involved in," he said, pledging to get back to reporters with details about how the health policy team will work.

Before Inauguration Day, transition director John Podesta said in an interview that Obama deliberately was building a strong, centralized White House organization, one that grew naturally out of his disciplined presidential campaign.

For example, Podesta said, a coherent White House energy policy "needs input not just from the Energy Department," but also from the EPA and the Interior, Commerce and Agriculture departments. Thus, an energy czar made sense.

Podesta saw little potential for the czars to undermine the authority of Cabinet agencies. "As long as the White House staff is respectful of the power and authority of the people in the Cabinet, as I know they will be, I think it will be a very workable model," he said in January.

Now that the White House is launching the system, aides are refining the description a bit. Messina emphasized that the czar positions rank below Cabinet positions.

He said the confirmation-free appointments do not violate the Constitution because the czars are aides to the president and his team. "They're super-staffers and report to the president and to Rahm," he said, referring to Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. "I meet with them. I don't meet with Cabinet secretaries; they're above me." Czars mainly will do their coordination work behind the scenes, and secretaries will serve more as what Messina calls the "public faces" of the administration.

That description does not allay Byrd's concerns, said his spokesman, Jesse Jacobs.

"If the czars are working behind the scenes and the secretaries will be the mouthpieces of the administration, it calls into question who is actually making the policy decision," he said. "Whoever is making the policy decisions needs to be accountable and available to Congress and the American public."

It's still very early in the Obama presidency, but others also question the czar setup.

Browner, whose title is special advisor to Obama on climate change and energy, told reporters two weeks ago that the administration soon would propose new rules to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from a variety of industries. Obama's EPA administrator had hinted at such a possibility, but had not made it clear how things would unfold.

Browner's statement set off a nervous response among a few Washington interest groups that objected to the executive branch unilaterally taking the lead on regulating a substance as ubiquitous as carbon.

"The issues are important enough that you have to have the give and the take of the congressional process -- and do this in the open," said former Michigan Gov. John Engler, who heads the National Assn. of Manufacturers.

At least one senator wanted to ask Browner about exactly that in a confirmation hearing. As a czar and not a Cabinet secretary, however, she did not have to answer questions on Capitol Hill.

"The overall concern is, Carol Browner has been appointed to coordinate all this energy policy," said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.). "What's her role going to be? She's not going to be going through a confirmation process. While [agency directors] had to come to Congress and answer questions, she didn't."

Personally, I already have concerns with Congress confirmed appointees having the power of law, but if these people are directing policy without even that much then there is definitely an issue.

And one has to ask: If he is so intelligent and has such great ideas, why does he need all these extra layers of aids? It almost sounds like many of his critics were correct in saying he has ideas, but no form of plan to make them a reality.
 
I think it is his intent to include as many voices as possible in the discussion of these various problem areas, although if that is the actual way the policy works out, I am otherwise uncertain. I've been having to do more reading in some of my presidency books to find good comparisons to what he is up to, because as the article pointed out, his methods are somewhat unconventional up to this point.

I do like the idea of the policy pannels, in lieu of a "Czar" of any kind, and this whole "meeting" deal that he has been doing lately as well.
 
The point is, if they are pushing policy that will have the force of law behind it they should be elected, or at least approved by elected officials.

And it looks like Jim Cramer is calling them out today on their economic policy (hint: he says it won't work).
http://www.mainstreet.com/article/moneyinvesting/news/cramer-my-response-white-house?page=1

Cramer: My Response To The White House
By Jim Cramer
Posted March 05, 2009

When I come to work each day, whether as a commentator for TheStreet.com or a host of Mad Money With Jim Cramer, I have only one thought in mind: helping people with their money.

I fight to help viewers and readers make and preserve capital. I fight for their 401(k)s, for their 529s and their IRAs. I fight for their annuities and for their life insurance policies. I fight for their profits, trading and investing. And in this horrible market, I fight to keep their losses to a minimum by having some good dividend-yielding stocks from different sectors, some bonds, some gold and some cash.

The lines are drawn pretty clearly: If you can help people make money to be able to retire, enjoy life, pay for college, pay down debt, etc., you are a "good guy," so to speak. If you take the other side of the trade, you are, well, let's say, a less favored fellow. And if you gun for the gigantic investor class that is out there that includes 90 million people in one form or another, whether it be 401(k)s or individual stocks or pension plans, then you are on my enemies list.

Now some, including Rush Limbaugh, would say I am on another enemies list: that of the White House. Limbaugh says there are only a handful of us on it, and if I am on it for defending all of the shareholders out there, then I am in good company. Limbaugh -- whom I do not know personally, but having been in radio myself, know professionally as a genius of the medium -- says, "They're going to shut Cramer up pretty soon, too, but he'll go down with a fight."

Limbaugh's dead right. I am a fight-not-flight guy, so I was on my hackles when I heard White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' answer to a question about my pointed criticism of the president on multiple venues, including the Today Show.

"I'm not entirely sure what he's pointing to to make some of the statements," Gibbs said about my point that President Obama's budget may be one of the great wealth destroyers of all time. "And you can go back and look at any number of statements he's made in the past about the economy and wonder where some of the backup for those are, too."

Huh? Backup? Look at the incredible decline in the stock market, in all indices, since the inauguration of the president, with the drop accelerating when the budget plan came to light because of the massive fear and indecision the document sowed: Raising taxes on the eve of what could be a second Great Depression, destroying the profits in healthcare companies (one of the few areas still robust in the economy), tinkering with the mortgage deduction at a time when U.S. house price depreciation is behind much of the world's morass and certainly the devastation affecting our banks, and pushing an aggressive cap and trade program that could raise the price of energy for millions of people.

The market's the effect; much of what the president is fighting for is the cause. The market's signal can't be ignored. It's too palpable, too predictive to be ignored, despite the prattle that the market's predicted far more recessions than we have.

Gibbs went on to say, "If you turn on a certain program, it's geared to a very small audience. No offense to my good friends or friend at CNBC, but the president has to look out for the broader economy and the broader population."

How much I wish it were true right now that stocks played less of a role in peoples' lives. But stocks, along with housing, are our principal forms of wealth in this country. Only the people who have lifetime tenure, insured solid pensions and rent homes but own no stocks personally are unaffected. Sure that's a lot of people, but believe me, they aspire to have homes and portfolios. If we only want to help those who have no wealth to destroy, we are not helping the majority of Americans; we are not helping the broader population.

You can argue, of course, that Obama inherited one of the worst hands in the world. I had been a relentless critic of the Bush administration's "stewardship" of the economy, calling repeatedly for changes to avert the disaster that I saw coming, although perhaps Gibbs hasn't seen my CNBC meltdown. Seemed pretty prescient to me.

I, like everyone else, have made less authoritative and wrong statements in the past, but that rant still stands as something that I am sure everyone in the Bush administrations' Treasury and Fed listened to. My calls to sell 20% of your stocks in September at Dow 11,000 and then all of your stock if you need the money for the next five years at Dow 10,000 in October, might have eluded Gibbs, too.

But Obama has undeniably made things worse by creating an atmosphere of fear and panic rather than an atmosphere of calm and hope. He's done it by pushing a huge amount of change at a very perilous moment, by seeking to demonize the entire banking system and by raising taxes for those making more than $250,000 at the exact time when we need them to spend and build new businesses, and by revoking deductions for funds to charity that help eliminate the excess supply of homes.

We had a banking crisis coming into this regime, but now every area is in crisis. Each day is worse than the previous one for this miserable economy and while Obama's champions cite the stimulus plan, it's really just a hodgepodge of old Democratic pork and will not create nearly as many manufacturing or service jobs as we hoped. China's stimulus plan is the model; ours is the parody.

Sure there's going to be some mortgage relief, but the way to approach that problem is to eliminate the overhang, which a $15,000 tax credit for existing home sales could have dented if not consumed. I have offered a comprehensive plan of 4% refinanced mortgages for all by the government, not just those many considered deadbeats, to eliminate moral hazard. I have come up with a novel plan to cut the principal and spare the banks regulatory problems by offering them a certificate of equity, making them whole over time when the house appreciates in value, which will happen if demand is stoked and supply is shrunk.

I have offered a comprehensive bank plan to solve a systemic problem -- could all bankers really be malefactors of wealth, Mr. President, or given the endemic nature can't we just presume that it's an epidemic and finger-pointing is a worthless endeavor until things get better? Like after Pearl Harbor -- let's win the war and then investigate, and even try and convict the bad actors, instead of demonizing everyone who works at a bank right now, when we need them to right themselves without too much taxpayer help.

Which leads me to the true irony of not being political: I don't like talking politics. It is personal, but some things are a matter of public record, including my substantial six figure donations to the Democratic Party before I was no longer allowed to contribute by contractual agreement. I regard two Democratic governors as my friends, and helped back one of them in a major financial way and spoke and campaigned directly for the other.

I also made it clear in a New York magazine article that I favored Obama over McCain because I thought Obama to be a middle-of-the-road Democrat, exactly the kind I have supported all my adult life, although I will admit to being far more left-wing during my teenage years and early 20s.

To be totally out of the closet, I actually embrace every part of Obama's agenda, right down to the increase on personal taxes and the mortgage deduction. I am a fierce environmentalist who has donated multiple acres to the state of New Jersey to keep forever wild. I believe in cap and trade. I favor playing hardball with drug companies that hold up the U.S. government with me-too products.

But these are issues that we have no time for now, on the verge of a second Great Depression. This is an agenda that must be held back for better times. It is an agenda that at this moment is radical vs. what is called for. I am proud to have voted for the Obama who I thought understood the need to get us on the right path, and create jobs and wealth before taxing it and making moves that hurt job creation -- certainly ones that will outweigh the meager number of jobs he's creating.

Most important, I believe his agenda is crushing nest eggs around the nation in loud ways, like the decline in the averages, and in soft but dangerous ways, like in the annuities that can't be paid and the insurance benefits that will be challenging to deliver on.

So I will fight the fight against that agenda. I will stand up for what I believe and for what I have always believed: Every person has a right to be rich in this country and I want to help them get there. And when they get there, if times are good, we can have them give back or pay higher taxes. Until they get there, I don't want them shackled or scared or paralyzed. That's what I see now.

If that makes me an enemy of the White House, then call me a general of an army that Obama may not even know exists -- tens of millions of people who live in fear of having no money saved when they need it and who get poorer by the day.

So, what do you do when one of your biggest supporters turns on you?

Was Cramer part of the Expectation Gap?
 
Good read FK. He's dead on. I happen to think that most of these goals aren't worthy ones even in good times - but now is certainly not the time to soak the "rich".
 
Back