Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

[YSSMAN]

Earmarks have been totally twisted by politicians over the last 4 years, and the media bit on it hard.

It seems like they've been bitching about it a lot longer than that. All of the congressmen and women will be happy to say that they're against them, but the reality of the situation is that earmarks are generally what they all rely on to get re-elected every two years. There is a lot we could do to limit the spending, but seeing as how it generally represents less than 2% of the budget every year... It doesn't seem like there will be that great of a push to get rid of it altogether any time soon.

As I sit here and think about it, I know that we wouldn't have had our big auditorium built downtown if it weren't for earmarks. As I understand the history of the project, according to some, that spending (was something like $650K in 1974) brought hundreds of jobs into the city, revitalized downtown Grand Rapids, and ultimately has continued the development to this day.

 

[Solid Fro]

HEADLINE: LITTLE POST, HUGE MESSAGE

 

[Omnis]

It seems like they've been bitching about it a lot longer than that. All of the congressmen and women will be happy to say that they're against them, but the reality of the situation is that earmarks are generally what they all rely on to get re-elected every two years. There is a lot we could do to limit the spending, but seeing as how it generally represents less than 2% of the budget every year... It doesn't seem like there will be that great of a push to get rid of it altogether any time soon.

As I sit here and think about it, I know that we wouldn't have had our big auditorium built downtown if it weren't for earmarks. As I understand the history of the project, according to some, that spending (was something like $650K in 1974) brought hundreds of jobs into the city, revitalized downtown Grand Rapids, and ultimately has continued the development to this day.

You're missing the point too. Earmarks do not equal spending. Earmarks are accountability. It's every congressperson's job to earmark anything their district asks for. Otherwise, all the money just goes to the executive and gets spent god-knows-how. The neo-cons twisted earmarking into "pork-barrel spending" because they wanted all the money for Bush and the spending in Iraq. It's the new bridge-to-nowhere.

 

[Swift]

You're missing the point too. Earmarks do not equal spending. Earmarks are accountability. It's every congressperson's job to earmark anything their district asks for. Otherwise, all the money just goes to the executive and gets spent god-knows-how. The neo-cons twisted earmarking into "pork-barrel spending" because they wanted all the money for Bush and the spending in Iraq. It's the new bridge-to-nowhere.

um, no.

Earmarks are for things in specific districts, but that doesn't mean it can't be put into a regular spending bill and approved through normal channels.

Neo-cons wanted all the money to go to bush and Iraq? How about conservatives just didn't want the money spent period? Is that possible? The stimulus bill has incredible earmarks in it that people put in when they KNEW it wouldn't get passed in any other situation. It's just so radically stupid it's not even funny. What's the justification for that in a national economic "stimulus" spending bill?

 

[YSSMAN]

You're missing the point too. Earmarks do not equal spending. Earmarks are accountability. It's every congressperson's job to earmark anything their district asks for. Otherwise, all the money just goes to the executive and gets spent god-knows-how.

You're right, I just didn't say it clearly (wouldn't be the first time). One of the professors at AQ was a former staffer for the guy who replaced Gerald Ford when he was bumped to VP, interestingly, one of just a few times a Democrat has represented this district. Anyway, all he ever talks about is how earmarks are a necessary evil and how politics are supposed to be a constant process of reform (ie, people die).

My point? Lost it... Um, earmarks are a necessary evil, that was probably it.

The stimulus bill has incredible earmarks in it that people put in when they KNEW it wouldn't get passed in any other situation.

Oh, so you're talking about how Sen. McConnell, among other prominent "conservative" Republicans, shoved their own "pet projects" into the omnibus bill, despite voting against it, but knowing that it would be passed so they get the money anyway? Nothing is sacred in Washington.

What am I talking about?

Sen. Mitch McConnell - R, Kentucky
- $51 Million

Sen. James Inhofe - R, Oklahoma
- $53 Million

Sen. Lisa Murkowski - R, Alaska
- $74 Million

Sen. Thad Cochran - R, Missippi
- $76 Million

Sen. Kit Bond - R, Missouri
- $85 Million

Sen. Richard Shelby - R, South Carolina
- $114 Million

That's politics, no doubt about it. Both sides suck at it, period.

 

[Omnis]

um, no.

Earmarks are for things in specific districts, but that doesn't mean it can't be put into a regular spending bill and approved through normal channels.

Neo-cons wanted all the money to go to bush and Iraq? How about conservatives just didn't want the money spent period? Is that possible? The stimulus bill has incredible earmarks in it that people put in when they KNEW it wouldn't get passed in any other situation. It's just so radically stupid it's not even funny. What's the justification for that in a national economic "stimulus" spending bill?

If "conservatives" are against earmarks and then vote FOR spending, then yeah, they want money for the executive. Republicans have been good on not voting for spending since Obama's been elected, but the same can't be said for every one of them during the Bush years.

Congress people have to earmark things so that we know where the money goes. Then, hopefully, they vote against it.

 

[Swift]

What am I talking about?

Sen. Mitch McConnell - R, Kentucky
- $51 Million

Sen. James Inhofe - R, Oklahoma
- $53 Million

Sen. Lisa Murkowski - R, Alaska
- $74 Million

Sen. Thad Cochran - R, Missippi
- $76 Million

Sen. Kit Bond - R, Missouri
- $85 Million

Sen. Richard Shelby - R, South Carolina
- $114 Million

That's politics, no doubt about it. Both sides suck at it, period.

True enough. the way things are done in washington blow period.

If "conservatives" are against earmarks and then vote FOR spending, then yeah, they want money for the executive. Republicans have been good on not voting for spending since Obama's been elected, but the same can't be said for every one of them during the Bush years.

Congress people have to earmark things so that we know where the money goes. Then, hopefully, they vote against it.

Republicans have been spendthrifts for too long. But getting back to the point. It's completely up surd the crap that's in the stimulus bill that has nothing to do with stimulus. It's like they're not even spending money. All they care about is getting re-elected. I really wish we could just clean house and start over again. But that would never happen.

 

[FoolKiller]

It's completely up surd the crap that's in the stimulus bill that has nothing to do with stimulus. It's like they're not even spending money. All they care about is getting re-elected. I really wish we could just clean house and start over again. But that would never happen.

That means we should vote for people who want to reverse the last 100 years. Unfortunately, those people are not Republicans or Democrats.

 

[Omnis]

Fortunately or unfortunately, I have a lot more faith that the "stimulus" money could be better spent by districts than by Geithner and his bankster pals. The hell with them.

 

[YSSMAN]

Do you happen to know what you're district is planning on spending the cash on? Ours got screwed thanks in part to Detroit, really, our half of the state in general. I really feel bad for the folks up in the UP, they're getting next-to-nothing. It seems like most of the cash is going to be spent on road repairs and some general infrastructure maintenance. Not a big surprise, but all things that have needed to be done for a long time.

 

[FoolKiller]

Louisville is reopening the three bus routes they closed over the summer and replacing some traditional buses with hybrid buses. So, three jobs were saved, if that. I'm not sure the drivers were even laid off.

I have heard nothing about Frankfort. I haven't heard anything from Lexington either other than reopening some fire houses. I do know Lexington's big newspaper has notified their customers that they are moving to an online only format, so some printers are going to be out of a job.

So far, not doing much.

 

[buickgnx88]

I really feel bad for the folks up in the UP, they're getting next-to-nothing. It seems like most of the cash is going to be spent on road repairs and some general infrastructure maintenance. Not a big surprise, but all things that have needed to be done for a long time.

I believe we're getting new plumbing downtown along with new roads and a widening of US-41 through campus. They're talking about after replacing the plumbing, installing an old fashioned brick road to give downtown an old-timey feel (or perhaps to copy Calumet...)

 

[Omnis]

Do you happen to know what you're district is planning on spending the cash on?

Off-hand? No. But it's much easier to find out, and much easier to complain about in order to cease such a project instead of your complaint only contributing to a popularity poll.

 

[YSSMAN]

Just in case people want to find out, Stimuluswatch.org lists the projects by state that have been (at least) suggested, no word on what has been ratified yet.

Unsurprisingly, the top project is a $225 Million one that will repair roads and create 225 jobs. The only other major project is a "Parking lot construction for economic development, infrastructure development, and housing - structure LEED certified" for $12 Million that will create 120 jobs. I've yet to completely figure out what it will be for, or where exactly it will be.

 

[Solid Fro]

Something fresh just came in the mail. Just in time for Obama's SOTU Mini... stump speech... smoke screen tonight.

Hmmm, I wonder which should go on first? Thanks Cafe Press!

 

[Omnis]

I have an idea. Instead of squandering hundreds of billions of dollars, Obama should just tour America hawking consumer goods to fuel his keynesian pipe dream. Waste of a salesman where he is now.

 

[Omnis]

Anybody catch the Op-Ed piece in the NYTimes by the guy who resigned from AIG? It's interesting to read the AIG story in context, as opposed to what we hear from the boob tube.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all

 

[FoolKiller]

Anybody catch the Op-Ed piece in the NYTimes by the guy who resigned from AIG? It's interesting to read the AIG story in context, as opposed to what we hear from the boob tube.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all

You mean the one where the government forced AIG to violate their employment contracts they entered into specifically to help the company get through this recession? Yeah, that was good.

 

[Biggles]

It's hard to feel sorry for someone who has just received a $742,000 (after tax) "bonus". The truth is the financial services sector has become addicted to irrationally large compensation payments that in recent years were justified by the huge, but completely illusory "profits" generated. Whether or not this particular individual was personally responsible for AIG's failure is besides the point: how can it be right for any AIG employee to receive massive bonuses when the company is basically insolvent & only surviving by feeding at the gargantuan teat provided by the U.S. taxpayer? If not for this money, the terms of the "employment contract" would be entirely moot anyway, as AIG would be bankrupt & unable to meet any of its contractual obligations.

"The few who can understand the system will be either so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class, while, on the other hand, that great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that Capital derives from the system, will bear its burden without complaint and, perhaps, without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests."
-Rothschilds to their New York agents

 

[Omnis]

It's hard to feel sorry for someone who has just received a $742,000 (after tax) "bonus". The truth is the financial services sector has become addicted to irrationally large compensation payments that in recent years were justified by the huge, but completely illusory "profits" generated. Whether or not this particular individual was personally responsible for AIG's failure is besides the point: how can it be right for any AIG employee to receive massive bonuses when the company is basically insolvent & only surviving by feeding at the gargantuan teat provided by the U.S. taxpayer? If not for this money, the terms of the "employment contract" would be entirely moot anyway, as AIG would be bankrupt & unable to meet any of its contractual obligations.

"The few who can understand the system will be either so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class, while, on the other hand, that great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that Capital derives from the system, will bear its burden without complaint and, perhaps, without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests."
-Rothschilds to their New York agents

Do you understand that it was only a few people in the entire company who put it down the crapper? Not to mention naked short selling by market predators. This guy, who nets the company hundreds of milllions in profits deserves his compensation. The company gave the bonuses instead of salaries to people who actually did their jobs. You can't expect a man to rake in hundreds of millions for a company in exchange for a dollar per year. You certainly can't call that fair, anyway.

Of course, if this weren't politicized, the company would have gone bankrupt from those select few, and those select few would be out of a job while some other company bought up the productive, profitable part of the business and the people that work in it.

 

[Danoff]

It's hard to feel sorry for someone who has just received a $742,000 (after tax) "bonus". The truth is the financial services sector has become addicted to irrationally large compensation payments that in recent years were justified by the huge, but completely illusory "profits" generated. Whether or not this particular individual was personally responsible for AIG's failure is besides the point: how can it be right for any AIG employee to receive massive bonuses when the company is basically insolvent & only surviving by feeding at the gargantuan teat provided by the U.S. taxpayer? If not for this money, the terms of the "employment contract" would be entirely moot anyway, as AIG would be bankrupt & unable to meet any of its contractual obligations.

Yea, maybe Omnis is wrong and the guy would be on the street if it weren't for the government stepping in. I highly doubt it given that his portion of the company was profitable during a time in which it was very difficult to be so. This guy stayed with AIG out of a sense of honor and he was rewarded by being branded and having his contracts violated.

You don't get to have it both ways. AIG isn't going to retain any of its good employees while it can't pay them at least somewhere in the vicinity of what they could make elsewhere. Either you let AIG go under, and those employees go find work elsewhere (and are better off). Or you prop AIG up (unconstitutionally) and let them do what they need to do to retain a competitive workforce so that they can pay back what they have "borrowed" from taxpayers.

What you can't do is throw cash at AIG in order to prop them up, and then tell them that they have to enact awful business policies that run off anyone who is worth a damn to the company. That would make absolutely no business sense. No investor in his right mind would do that. It would have to be an investor who didn't understand business practices and was using someone else's money. An "investor" like... oh say... congress.

 

[FoolKiller]

It's hard to feel sorry for someone who has just received a $742,000 (after tax) "bonus".

I can if he only received $1 as salary for the entire year, a deal he signed in order to attempt to prevent AIG's collapse.

how can it be right for any AIG employee to receive massive bonuses when the company is basically insolvent & only surviving by feeding at the gargantuan teat provided by the U.S. taxpayer? If not for this money, the terms of the "employment contract" would be entirely moot anyway, as AIG would be bankrupt & unable to meet any of its contractual obligations.

It's not right, but has little to do with this guy having his contract met. The problem was that they were given money at the cost of taxpayers. After that has been done God forbid that AIG pay their employees what they were promised.

There are two rules that MUST be met in any business: 1) Get the product to the client. 2) Pay your employees.

AIG fails at number one, but when they try to do number two they get their individual names drug through the mud, and are threatened by politicians to have their reputations ruined if they accept their compensation. Yeah, a guy who did his job legitimately, did nothing illegal, gets paid and Cuomo decides that due process, innocent until proven guilty, pick your position, doesn't apply in his state. No, instead he thinks that what is an obviously veiled threat on their safety is the way to go.

Why is this guy resigning and others quickly handing their bonuses back? Because the attorney general of New York has threatened to leave them to this:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...x?guid={9D4F3866-CCD7-4919-A029-5B3FF765D345}

Former RBS chief's home attacked by vandals
By Simon Kennedy, MarketWatch
Last update: 11:04 a.m. EDT March 25, 2009Comments: 77

LONDON (MarketWatch) -- The Edinburgh home of former Royal Bank of Scotland CEO Fred Goodwin was attacked by vandals in the early hours of the morning Wednesday.
Several ground-floor windows in the 3 million pound ($4.4 million) house were smashed and a Mercedes car was also damaged, according to media reports. Police officers were guarding the entrance to the house on Wednesday morning.
Goodwin has been widely criticized for the way he ran RBS (UK:RBS: news , chart , profile ) (RBS:7.69, +0.47, +6.5%) , including the acquisition of Dutch bank ABN Amro, which sharply increased risks as the credit crisis began to gather speed.
More recently his 700,000 pounds-a-year pension has evoked widespread public anger and condemnation as taxpayers keep the bank afloat.
The Edinburgh Evening News reported on its Web site that it had received two emails early Wednesday from a group claiming to be behind the attack. The emails branded bank bosses "criminals" and threatened further action.
"We are angry that rich people, like him, are paying themselves a huge amount of money, and living in luxury, while ordinary people are made unemployed, destitute and homeless. This is a crime. Bank bosses should be jailed," one of the emails said, according to the report.
"This is just the beginning," it added.

Early retirement
Goodwin took early retirement from RBS last year after the bank received a 20 billion pound bailout from the U.K. government. Since then it's required further support, including insurance of its risky assets, which could see the government's stake in the bank rise as high as 95%.
It emerged last month that Goodwin's pension pot would have been about half its current level if he hadn't been granted early retirement, sparking demands from politicians that he give up some of the payout and threats of legal action.
Goodwin has reportedly had to remove his two children from school over fears for their safety and is considering leaving the country.
Companies at the center of the financial crisis are having to beef up security globally amid rising public anger.
RBS had reportedly been paying for security staff and CCTV monitoring of Goodwin's home, but in the U.S. firms have had to go a step further, with American International Group (AIG:1.10, -0.10, -8.3%) posting armed guards outside the offices of its financial-products division after staff received death threats.
Other companies are also being advised to step up security at their annual meetings, including warning local police departments about any possible trouble and having security staff ready to eject disruptive shareholders

Armed guards!!! And that is without their names being made public. Let Cuomo finish being a Jackhole and they'll need armed guards at home.

 

[Solid Fro]

Hannan is my hero.

 

[Tornado]

I thought of an interesting question while listening to the complete idiots in my health class today: If (theoretically) the rebound keeps happening, and we are out of the recession by July or whatever, will they (as in, history) give Obama credit for it, even though by that point he wouldn't have actually done anything either way?

From that I ask this (seemingly more important) question: On the off chance that such a thing were to happen, would the administration have the balls to go through with the spending bill anyways?


I also have to ask Biggles something: How far is what the government is pulling with AIG right now from the government simply saying "We don't like this, so it should go away?"

 

[YSSMAN]

If (theoretically) the rebound keeps happening, and we are out of the recession by July or whatever, will they (as in, history) give Obama credit for it, even though by that point he wouldn't have actually done anything either way?

Well, things have happened. The money started going out late last week. But, I can see your point. Historically speaking, I believe they would chalk the growth in the market not to the spending, but instead to the belief that something is being done, increasing confidence. This, arguably, was the main goal for Roosevelt during the Great Depression, particularly with the banking holiday (creating the FDIC) and the creation of the NRA.

Time will tell, but we're nowhere near the end of the woods yet. So, credit goes nowhere at this point, even for me.

From that I ask this (seemingly more important) question: On the off chance that such a thing were to happen, would the administration have the balls to go through with the spending bill anyways

At this point, the money is headed out, so that won't be stopped. In the long-term, should the economy turn around, we could see spending curbed in the next budget. That, of course, depends greatly on what happens with this one first. Truthfully, there are a lot of variables to factor in. Bump the schedule forward to 2010, its hard to know what will happen.

 

[Omnis]

Hannan is my hero.

Yeah, he's like Ron Paul with charisma. You forgot the vid of him on Cavuto (where he said he would've voted for Ron Paul at 4:55 )



It's funny how quickly Fox (Hannity, actually) changes its tune as soon as someone else takes power.

 

[Solid Fro]

I don't watch Cavuto. All this money stuff is over my head and I can't give a sane answer to a money question.

Hannan would vote for The Crazy Uncle? Great, nothing wrong with that. I would shave Obama's nuts before I'd vote for Ron Paul.

 

[Omnis]

I don't watch Cavuto. All this money stuff is over my head and I can't give a sane answer to a money question.

Hannan would vote for The Crazy Uncle? Great, nothing wrong with that. I would shave Obama's nuts before I'd vote for Ron Paul.

You'd have to fight Michelle first.

 

[RACECAR]

You'd have to fight Michelle first.

 

[Solid Fro]

You'd have to fight Michelle first.

Speaking of Michelle... some Liberals at the UC finally got her to show up for the graduation ceremonies in May. Seriously, Michelle? Is she going to start loving her country now or is sticking to what she said on the campaign trail:



I don't ever want to hear this woman ever again. As an American, what she said is embarrassing and in my gut, I know what she said is wrong.