President Elect Barack Obama (post-election-official)

[Gatorubet]

Originally Posted by Bucklion

And at least a quarter of the country will swear to their grave Obama was right in the middle of it, no matter what comes out. Just like a whole bunch will swear 9/11 was an inside job, no matter what comes out. I'd say roughly 2/3 (1/3 each side) of the country believes what they want to believe, no matter what the facts are in any situation. You know, Bush invaded Iraq (or, for the real tinfoils, let 9/11 happen) for no other reason than so that Cheney could get rich, Obama wasn't born here and is going to give all our money to black people for reparations and Arabs so we aren't a Superpower anymore...a lot of people either a) ignore facts, b) swear the facts are covered up and the government will never allow it to be known, c) make up their own facts, or the popular d) all of the above in combination. Doesn't make any of them right, or give any of them a clue.

Bucklion, while I think you are right about the level of ignorance and rancour on both sides, the fact that there is moaning over the way Bush caused 911 (from the crazies) does not diminish the fact that "moaning" about the Government's use of torture, its handling of the war, politization of the Justice department and many other agencies, where how you answered a question about abortion was more important than your legal training, use of "signing statements", etc, were not legitimate issues with many people.

The phrase "[censored]ing and moaning over bs" strikes me as trying to convey a message that critcisms of the current administration were not valid, or if valid, highly overblown.

I simply disagree. If that was not what Jim, then I blame the eggnog.

[generaladm]

Originally Posted by Bucklion

And at least a quarter of the country will swear to their grave Obama was right in the middle of it, no matter what comes out. Just like a whole bunch will swear 9/11 was an inside job, no matter what comes out. I'd say roughly 2/3 (1/3 each side) of the country believes what they want to believe, no matter what the facts are in any situation. You know, Bush invaded Iraq (or, for the real tinfoils, let 9/11 happen) for no other reason than so that Cheney could get rich, Obama wasn't born here and is going to give all our money to black people for reparations and Arabs so we aren't a Superpower anymore...a lot of people either a) ignore facts, b) swear the facts are covered up and the government will never allow it to be known, c) make up their own facts, or the popular d) all of the above in combination. Doesn't make any of them right, or give any of them a clue.

I think you're pretty spot on there, BL (though 1/3 may be a tad high). The unfortunate part is that those with the extreme views are the most vocal, and manage to get the most exposure. I think in the current climate, most people would be happy to see a practical solutions to the problems that the country is facing, even if it's not in lock-step with their political views. There will be an endless stream accusations directed at Obama, simply because there are people who get paid large salaries to do so, but it will be interesting to see how most people respond to them, given the gravity of the economic crisis. I was thinking along similar lines when people were discussing how hardline dems are unhappy with Obama's appointments. Extreme political agendas coudn't be more irrelevant right now. Obama is going to have a giant [censored] storm to deal with the second he's sworn in, and his focus should be on making the right decisions to benefit all Americans, not talking heads. Hopefully, the reality of the current crisis causes more people to move toward the center, rather than the political polarization that has dominated the past decade.

[jimotis4heisman]

Originally Posted by Gatorubet

What the country was moaning about was not bs. And it was more than 30% if you looked at the last several elections.

But we all can agree that we hope he is honest on the big stuff. I mean, they are still politicians, so spin is a part of every politician's life, but I hope that he is better than the last group at minimum

the bs i was talking to was the pre elected bs. stealing the election, blah blah inside job with his brother, not a legit president etc. whether you believe it or not bush/obama were/are our president. lets make the best of it whether you agree with it at not.


ps on a side note ive been asked now 3 times to send shoes to the white house and bushs house in texas provided with addresses to send himout of office the right way... how silly.

[jimotis4heisman]

Originally Posted by Gatorubet

Bucklion, while I think you are right about the level of ignorance and rancour on both sides, the fact that there is moaning over the way Bush caused 911 (from the crazies) does not diminish the fact that "moaning" about the Government's use of torture, its handling of the war, politization of the Justice department and many other agencies, where how you answered a question about abortion was more important than your legal training, use of "signing statements", etc, were not legitimate issues with many people.

The phrase "[censored]ing and moaning over bs" strikes me as trying to convey a message that critcisms of the current administration were not valid, or if valid, highly overblown.

I simply disagree. If that was not what Jim, then I blame the eggnog.

if you disagree with policy x. im fine with that. granted some of the povs are weak and sometimes people forget how many people sided with bush on policy y or z when it happened. but thats not what im referring to. my reference is george bush hates black people, stealing the election. stuff that isnt in any way shape or form a reality.

if you disagree with stem cell research, abortion views, invasion of afghanistan, etc i have no problems with that. make your voice heard, in a productive way, legally and peacefully.

[Bucklion]

Obama as a uniter is completely overrated, says Republican...no make that Democrat Barney "I love Freddie and Fanny" Franks...

The Hill's Blog Briefing Room ? Rep. Frank: Obama 'Overestimates' Ability to Unify


Awwww, is poor Bawney Fwanks upset Obama isn't, well, to paraphrase Dennis Green, "who he thought he was"? This Democratic whining, complaining, and infighting before Obama even takes office is, well, rather amusing to me, considering the kumbaya bull[censored] they were all spewing during campaign season.

[Gatorubet]

Originally Posted by Bucklion

Obama as a uniter is completely overrated, says Republican...no make that Democrat Barney "I love Freddie and Fanny" Franks...

The Hill's Blog Briefing Room ? Rep. Frank: Obama 'Overestimates' Ability to Unify


Awwww, is poor Bawney Fwanks upset Obama isn't, well, to paraphrase Dennis Green, "who he thought he was"? This Democratic whining, complaining, and infighting before Obama even takes office is, well, rather amusing to me, considering the kumbaya bull[censored] they were all spewing during campaign season.

Obama ran on a centrist inclusive message. Frank may be mad that the criminal trials are not starting for all Republicans, but Obama never promised that. He is doing what he promised. That won't keep the far left and the far right from being unhappy about it. But neither have the votes, so they can keep whining. While you might have thought it was kumbaya, you had to get that from someone other than Obama. He said he'd listen. If you want to take that as "promised do what the far left and right says", you need to look up "listen."

He promised no more my way or the highway and no talking about it bull[censored]. Does not mean that he won't do as he pleases when he can, but you will have had a chance to have a voice, something the current White House denied. Personally, losing an argument is not - to me - as maddening as not being allowed to voice an opinion.

[AKAKBUCK]

Originally Posted by Bucklion

no make that Democrat Barney "I love Freddie's Fanny" Franks...

fify


(sorry, I couldn't help it)

[Bucklion]

Originally Posted by Gatorubet

Obama ran on a centrist inclusive message. Frank may be mad that the criminal trials are not starting for all Republicans, but Obama never promised that. He is doing what he promised. That won't keep the far left and the far right from being unhappy about it. But neither have the votes, so they can keep whining. While you might have thought it was kumbaya, you had to get that from someone other than Obama. He said he'd listen. If you want to take that as "promised do what the far left and right says", you need to look up "listen."

He promised no more my way or the highway and no talking about it bull[censored]. Does not mean that he won't do as he pleases when he can, but you will have had a chance to have a voice, something the current White House denied. Personally, losing an argument is not - to me - as maddening as not being allowed to voice an opinion.

I wasn't busting on Obama, I was busting on Franks...and it's Bill Clinton who needs definitons of simple words like "listen" and "is", not me.

[Bucklion]

4 more years of Bush from McCain if he had gotten elec...or was that Obama? Aren't these the people who are supposedly guilty of "war crimes"? (hint: the comments section has the answer) Change we can believe in?

Washington Times - Obama wants Bush war team to stay

[Tresselbeliever]

As expect, Obama's past history of disappointing liberals with his appointment of conservatives at Harvard Law Review turned out to be a good indicator for his Presidential appointments. Deep down inside I think Obama is way more left leaning than Clinton ever was in his suspicions of the free market and his faith in the power of the government to change for the better. Whether he puts his beliefs to test remains to be seen.

[Gatorubet]

Originally Posted by Bucklion

I wasn't busting on Obama, I was busting on Franks...and it's Bill Clinton who needs definitons of simple words like "listen" and "is", not me.

Misunderstood your use of "you" in the post then Buck. My bad.

Bust on Frank to your heart's content.

Target rich environment.

[ORD_Buckeye]

Originally Posted by Tresselbeliever

As expect, Obama's past history of disappointing liberals with his appointment of conservatives at Harvard Law Review turned out to be a good indicator for his Presidential appointments. Deep down inside I think Obama is way more left leaning than Clinton ever was in his suspicions of the free market and his faith in the power of the government to change for the better. Whether he puts his beliefs to test remains to be seen.

The one silver lining in the appointment of Geithner and the other Rubin disciples is that this might simply be a little bit of strategic positioning on Obama's part for the following reasons.

1. Short Term: steady the markets with appointments that will not freak out Wall Street.
2. Long Term: Geithner and the rest will merely be the messengers of Obama's policy--i.e. make the messengers more palatable to Wall Street as a more efficient way of delivering the unpalatable message of true reform and regulation. Obama's appointments to head Labor and the SEC would argue that Geithner may simply be a bone thrown to Wall Street rather than the ultimate architect of administration economic policy.

We'll see. I wasn't happy with Geithner's selection, but I can foresee a situation where he is merely a figurehead for policies undoing the Rubin-Gramm-Greenspan damage.

As for the Obama-Clinton comparison, I think that Obama is at heart a liberal and that these principles are firmly grounded. Clinton, to the contrary, had no real philosophical bearings beyond what was best at the moment for Bill Clinton. He pursued a right of center administration not out of any genuine conviction that it was best for America but out of the conviction that it was best for the continued political viability of Bill Clinton. Had the national zeitgeist of the 90s been left of center, Clinton would have governed as the second coming of FDR. Again, not grounded in any true philosophical belief system but merely because that was the course of action that best served his personal political fortunes.

[Tresselbeliever]

Originally Posted by ORD_Buckeye

The one silver lining in the appointment of Geithner and the other Rubin disciples is that this might simply be a little bit of strategic positioning on Obama's part for the following reasons.

1. Short Term: steady the markets with appointments that will not freak out Wall Street.
2. Long Term: Geithner and the rest will merely be the messengers of Obama's policy--i.e. make the messengers more palatable to Wall Street as a more efficient way of delivering the unpalatable message of true reform and regulation. Obama's appointments to head Labor and the SEC would argue that Geithner may simply be a bone thrown to Wall Street rather than the ultimate architect of administration economic policy.

We'll see. I wasn't happy with Geithner's selection, but I can foresee a situation where he is merely a figurehead for policies undoing the Rubin-Gramm-Greenspan damage.

As for the Obama-Clinton comparison, I think that Obama is at heart a liberal and that these principles are firmly grounded. Clinton, to the contrary, had no real philosophical bearings beyond what was best at the moment for Bill Clinton. He pursued a right of center administration not out of any genuine conviction that it was best for America but out of the conviction that it was best for the continued political viability of Bill Clinton. Had the national zeitgeist of the 90s been left of center, Clinton would have governed as the second coming of FDR. Again, not grounded in any true philosophical belief system but merely because that was the course of action that best served his personal political fortunes.

I agree that Geithner was a good selection given his experience and expertise at crisis management. However, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that he was the chief government regulator of Citi, a fact that is incongruent with the perceived policy imperative of implementing stricter regulations. You can't have it both ways from a regulatory standpoint: he either did his job as a regulator or he didn't.

The debate about regulation deserves its own discussion some other day, but I think the fact that Obama has full confidence in the chief regulator of Citi says enough about the relevance of the regulatory structure and about the man's abilities.

Clinton showed a lot of courage by cutting the deficit, which along with Reagan's incentive policies, paved the way for the expansion of the 90s. I hope Obama will prove to be equally pragmatic, although he has much less freedom of action given the simultaneous monetary and fiscal crisis.

[jimotis4heisman]

Obama Eyes $300 Billion Tax Cut - WSJ.com

WASHINGTON -- President-elect Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are crafting a plan to offer about $300 billion of tax cuts to individuals and businesses, a move aimed at attracting Republican support for an economic-stimulus package and prodding companies to create jobs.
The size of the proposed tax cuts -- which would account for about 40% of a stimulus package that could reach $775 billion over two years -- is greater than many on both sides of the aisle in Congress had anticipated. It may make it easier to win over Republicans who have stressed that any initiative should rely more heavily on tax cuts rather than spending.
Getty Images President-elect Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are crafting a plan to offer as much as $310 billion of tax cuts.



The Obama tax-cut proposals, if enacted, could pack more punch in two years than either of President George W. Bush's tax cuts did in their first two years. Mr. Bush's 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax cut of 2001, considered the largest in history, contained $174 billion of cuts during its first two full years, according to Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation. The second-largest tax cut -- the 10-year, $350 billion package engineered by Mr. Bush in 2003 -- contained $231 billion in 2004 and 2005.


...

The largest piece of tax relief in the new plan would involve cuts for people who pay income taxes or who claim the earned-income credit, a refund designed to lessen the impact of payroll taxes on low- and moderate-income workers. This component would serve as a down payment on the "Making Work Pay" proposal Mr. Obama outlined during his election campaign, giving a credit of $500 per individual or $1,000 per family.
On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama said he would phase out a similar tax-credit proposal at around $200,000 per household, but aides said they haven't settled on an income cap for the latest proposal. This part of the plan is similar to a bipartisan initiative launched in early 2008, which sent out checks worth $131 billion.
Economists of all political stripes widely agree the checks sent out last spring were ineffective in stemming the economic slide, partly because many strapped consumers paid bills or saved the cash rather than spend it. But Obama aides wanted a provision that could get money into consumers' hands fast, and hope they will be persuaded to spend money this time if the credit is made a permanent feature of the tax code.


continued

[ORD_Buckeye]

Originally Posted by Tresselbeliever

Clinton showed a lot of courage by cutting the deficit, which along with Reagan's incentive policies, paved the way for the expansion of the 90s. I hope Obama will prove to be equally pragmatic, although he has much less freedom of action given the simultaneous monetary and fiscal crisis.

Out of curiosity, do you admire Bush 41's courage in going against his own party and cutting the deficit deal with Democrats which, I feel, was the real catalyst for the Clinton budget surpluses. The "true believers" in his own party crucified him at the time for it, but I feel that it, along with his deft handling of the demise of the Warsaw Pact and USSR, are what propel Bush I to being one of the better presidents of the 20th century--and probably the best since Truman.