Thank you for quitting campaigning and starting to build some hope.
Only took a month, but who's counting with massive layoffs and the markets tanking for weeks. No matter how long we allow Congress and the President to take to get a plan rolling, chances are it's frought with pitfalls. I just want to see some American optimism again, that's the most important "tangible" for lots of people right now.
Can't say I agreed with his entire speech, nor with the porkulus plan, but I think he showed some good leadership this evening.
On the other side of the coin ...
Does anyone know whether Bobby Jindal was on some weird meds or something? Was he chugging Marshall's beer with Conan before the speech? He was gawdawful.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
On the other side of the coin ...
Does anyone know whether Bobby Jindal was on some weird meds or something? Was he chugging Marshall's beer with Conan before the speech? He was gawdawful.
Marshall's makes you smarter. I'm sure it was meds+Marshall. You know you're never supposed to combine the two!
I think it was a mistake to have the governor of Louisiana speak on Fat Tuesday...
He sounded like Mr. Rogers.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
He sounded like Mr. Rogers.
LOL! Great comparison.
quote:
Originally posted by kylieosu
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
He sounded like Mr. Rogers.
LOL! Great comparison.
Yeah, and his body language was a little weird. he kept moving his arms about in a robotic fashion.
I was out last night and finally did get to see the entire speech. I was really surprised at how 'bi-partisan' the reaction seemed in comparison to other President's addressing of the joint session, whether is be a SOTU or otherwise. I heard several of the talking heads mention that same thing spread across all the news networks. Really strong speech.
But I'm an 'Obama Spooner', so what do I know.
[:O]
What the hell is with the TW reporting that only $14mil is earmarked for green country from this package?
Each person in the nation kicks in something like $2,800. Green country has around 1.5mil people. So we get like $10 per capita? We got more money from George Kaiser and QT last year.
The article needs to explain that these are the set earmarks and not the total expenditures. If they are, then I'm going to start shooting.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090225_16_A1_WSIGOm256990
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
What the hell is with the TW reporting that only $14mil is earmarked for green country from this package?
Each person in the nation kicks in something like $2,800. Green country has around 1.5mil people. So we get like $10 per capita? We got more money from George Kaiser and QT last year.
The article needs to explain that these are the set earmarks and not the total expenditures. If they are, then I'm going to start shooting.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090225_16_A1_WSIGOm256990
Is this the the Omnibus spending bill? It does not sound like the stimulus/spendulus package.
It's pretty obvious Jindal is at the top of someone's list at the RNC for the '12 POTUS candidate. He somewhat follows the Obama formula. Maybe the RNC is finally learning that young political rock stars have mass voter appeal.
For a relative new-comer to the national spotlight, I didn't think he was too bad, but I really don't care for the message of absolutely zero support out of the GOP right now. I'm not saying that massive deficit spending is a great thing, I don't think the gov't has the entire solution for the current crisis, BUT, I'd like to see just a little "go-along to get-along" at this point.
I'm weary of the shrill partisan politics at all levels of gov't anymore.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
What the hell is with the TW reporting that only $14mil is earmarked for green country from this package?
Each person in the nation kicks in something like $2,800. Green country has around 1.5mil people. So we get like $10 per capita? We got more money from George Kaiser and QT last year.
The article needs to explain that these are the set earmarks and not the total expenditures. If they are, then I'm going to start shooting.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090225_16_A1_WSIGOm256990
This article is not about the package just passed, its about the 2009 budget. I was hoping Obama would get rid of the earmarks in this budget. But it seems that both Repubs and Dems cant resist sticking them in.
So was I dense, or is the article not very clear? Particularity with the stimulus package being THE topic of discussion.
On a related note: I wish an executive would stick to his guns on pork. GW tried a little, but failed. Legislators can't really do it - if they do they are just punishing their districts.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
It's pretty obvious Jindal is at the top of someone's list at the RNC for the '12 POTUS candidate. He somewhat follows the Obama formula. Maybe the RNC is finally learning that young political rock stars have mass voter appeal.
For a relative new-comer to the national spotlight, I didn't think he was too bad, but I really don't care for the message of absolutely zero support out of the GOP right now. I'm not saying that massive deficit spending is a great thing, I don't think the gov't has the entire solution for the current crisis, BUT, I'd like to see just a little "go-along to get-along" at this point.
I'm weary of the shrill partisan politics at all levels of gov't anymore.
I think Obama messed up with the stimulus package. Most economists I have heard say that we need a stimulus that is much larger, that the economy is so large, this will hardly have any effect. Have heard estimates ranging from 5-7 trillion.
In the spirit of bipartisanship, a nod to Republicans concerns about spending too much. Obama went for something far less in the 1trillion dollar range. Then also made a chunk of that tax cuts, which the dems in the house and senate would not likely have done otherwise.
In essence he gave the Republicans what they wanted AND the ability for them to compalain that they were left out of the negotiation process.
This also had 2 other unintended consequences. If Obama had started from a postion of saying we probably needed more, but suggesting 2 or 3 trillion for instance, it would have allowed the Republicans to "negotiate" down to 1 trillion and be able to say "Look we got the spending down." Thus saving face and looking like they were doing at least something. Plus, the dems could have said "We gave up something in the spirit of bipartisanship, etc." Obamas starting point didnt allow for either side to be able to say those things. The "Art of the Deal" is often just as important as the deal itself. That "Art of the Deal" could have allowed everyone to come out of the situation looking better. Looking like they did their jobs and in the bipartisan manner the nation wants to see. Obama, bungled that opportunity by starting in a "well intentioned" position that didn't allow for hardly any negotiation. It didnt allow the Republicans to look like they were doing or being part of anything at all, nor the Democrats to say they reached across the aisle.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
On the other side of the coin ...
Does anyone know whether Bobby Jindal was on some weird meds or something? Was he chugging Marshall's beer with Conan before the speech? He was gawdawful.
I kinda felt sorry for him having to give a speech without somebody hopping up and down behind him.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
It's pretty obvious Jindal is at the top of someone's list at the RNC for the '12 POTUS candidate. He somewhat follows the Obama formula. Maybe the RNC is finally learning that young political rock stars have mass voter appeal.
For a relative new-comer to the national spotlight, I didn't think he was too bad, but I really don't care for the message of absolutely zero support out of the GOP right now. I'm not saying that massive deficit spending is a great thing, I don't think the gov't has the entire solution for the current crisis, BUT, I'd like to see just a little "go-along to get-along" at this point.
I'm weary of the shrill partisan politics at all levels of gov't anymore.
I think Obama messed up with the stimulus package. Most economists I have heard say that we need a stimulus that is much larger, that the economy is so large, this will hardly have any effect. Have heard estimates ranging from 5-7 trillion.
In the spirit of bipartisanship, a nod to Republicans concerns about spending too much. Obama went for something far less in the 1trillion dollar range. Then also made a chunk of that tax cuts, which the dems in the house and senate would not likely have done otherwise.
In essence he gave the Republicans what they wanted AND the ability for them to compalain that they were left out of the negotiation process.
This also had 2 other unintended consequences. If Obama had started from a postion of saying we probably needed more, but suggesting 2 or 3 trillion for instance, it would have allowed the Republicans to "negotiate" down to 1 trillion and be able to say "Look we got the spending down." Thus saving face and looking like they were doing at least something. Plus, the dems could have said "We gave up something in the spirit of bipartisanship, etc." Obamas starting point didnt allow for either side to be able to say those things. The "Art of the Deal" is often just as important as the deal itself. That "Art of the Deal" could have allowed everyone to come out of the situation looking better. Looking like they did their jobs and in the bipartisan manner the nation wants to see. Obama, bungled that opportunity by starting in a "well intentioned" position that didn't allow for hardly any negotiation. It didnt allow the Republicans to look like they were doing or being part of anything at all, nor the Democrats to say they reached across the aisle.
Yeah, he's so naive. Probably never read "the art of the deal". Give them more credit than that Arty.
-He's president, not emperor. Congress and its leaders are part of the picture and negotiations.
-Pubs were going to complain under any scenario and polls show the dissatisfaction of the public with repub reluctance to be bi-partisan.
-A three trillion dollar stimulus would have outraged conservatives and strengthened the position of pubs and painted Dems as out of control. More than three states would have refused the money.
He bungled it so badly that the market jumped, the polls solidified and confidence is increasing. Remember...you're in Okiehoma. It clouds perception.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Have heard estimates ranging from 5-7 trillion.
Might be only a portion of what's in store. 5-7 trillion in one swoop, that would be more of a revolution than a stimulus.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
It's pretty obvious Jindal is at the top of someone's list at the RNC for the '12 POTUS candidate.
Typically the "rebuttal" is given by a congressperson, of the minority party. That they went to a governor, kind of signifies that the minority party in congress couldn't have delivered that speech believably, and with a straight face. I don't think they wanted Jindal, I don't think they had much choice though.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Quote
I think Obama messed up with the stimulus package. Most economists I have heard say that we need a stimulus that is much larger, that the economy is so large, this will hardly have any effect. Have heard estimates ranging from 5-7 trillion.
Five to seven trillion????
I don't know where you got those numbers. Even an unabashed liberal like Paul Krugman has advocated a stimulus package of about $1.5 trillion, based on an estimate that the nation's GNP will drop by at least $2 trillion.
But there's no way in hell the Congress would have ever passed a $1.5 trillion package, no matter how needed it is. Obama advocated a bill that would actually have a shot at getting passed, not a shoot-the-moon project. He understood this in a way that Bill Martinson didn't.
quote:
Originally posted by Neptune
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Have heard estimates ranging from 5-7 trillion.
Might be only a portion of what's in store. 5-7 trillion in one swoop, that would be more of a revolution than a stimulus.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
It's pretty obvious Jindal is at the top of someone's list at the RNC for the '12 POTUS candidate.
Typically the "rebuttal" is given by a congressperson, of the minority party. That they went to a governor, kind of signifies that the minority party in congress couldn't have delivered that speech believably, and with a straight face. I don't think they wanted Jindal, I don't think they had much choice though.
Jindal is starting his campaign for '12. They want to get the publicity and buzz going for him, much like President Obama got by speaking at the '04 DNC. The GOP is showing their hand, the message is going to be run-away deficit-spending "The Obama camp didn't make good on their promise to reduce the deficit, etc." Just watch.
Think about it, he's young, ethnic, ostensibly well-educated, and he comes from yet another historically politically-corrupt corner of the country. Probably doesn't have a long paper trail of controversial decisions. He's perfect for the job.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I think Obama messed up with the stimulus package.
He did mess up, quite badly. It was obvious from the get-go that the Republicans weren't going to go along with the stimulus package no matter what was in it, so why on earth did he throw the whole thing under the bus by making a third of the amount tax cuts?
Tax cuts aren't stimulus in a recession..they get saved, not spent. The whole point is to spend money.
If it would have avoided the situation where all but 3 republicans voted against it, I'd say it was good political calculus, but as it stands, the GOP got what they wanted and they still get to beat him over the head with it come 2012.
I guess he bought into their bipartisanship bull****. (which I'm all for, but with the post-Newt Republicans is a complete pipe dream)
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Quote
Jindal is starting his campaign for '12. They want to get the publicity and buzz going for him, much like President Obama got by speaking at the '04 DNC. The GOP is showing their hand, the message is going to be run-away deficit-spending "The Obama camp didn't make good on their promise to reduce the deficit, etc." Just watch.
1) That's assuming he's actually going to run in 2012, which is very soon after he has to secure his re-election in Louisiana in 2011. That won't give him much face time in Iowa.
2) That's also assuming that he'll win the nomination. You'll likely have guys like Mitt Romney, Charlie Crist and the governor of Utah running. Plus the governor of Alaska, if she ever figures out how to string together a coherent sentence.
Commander in Chiefs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIHz5tevLAw&eurl=http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/&feature=player_embedded
Quote from: guido911 on March 05, 2009, 08:23:22 AM
Commander in Chiefs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIHz5tevLAw&eurl=http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/&feature=player_embedded
What's great about the US is that our armed forces have supported the president in power without question for almost 250 years. They have a strong tradition of remaining apolitical, regardless of the personal affiliations of the people who serve. Which is as it should be. Try having a democracy with an armed forces that takes sides and see how long that whole "will of the people" thing lasts.
The setting was also very different. The Marines for "Barry" were clearly at attention. Clearly they were not as enthusiastic with President Obama, but I doubt it is to the extent the video makes it out to be. Though it was kinda funny.
And +1 to wevus.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on February 25, 2009, 06:24:35 PM
if she ever figures out how to string together a coherent sentence.
I don't think that's a requirement, by any means. W had issues with that except when he was talking about foreign wars. (Perhaps that's telling of his attitude)
Okay, who said this:
"One year from now, we have the chance to tell all those corporate lobbyists that the days of them setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race - and I've won. I don't take a dime of their money, and when I am President, they won't find a job in my White House."
That's right, our president:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/jan/obama-white-house-lobbyist-haven
So, has he kept this promise? Let's see:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18128.html
And now tonight we learn two more Obama appointees that were lobbyists were given ethics waivers:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/
Obama is a liar. Come on Obama lovers, defend these appointments.
Quote from: guido911 on March 10, 2009, 09:15:26 PM
Come on Obama lovers, defend these appointments.
They don't have to. Just like Bush before him, he's the president.
How bad off are you when Chavez calls you an ignoramus:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE52L19G20090322?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Quote from: nathanm on March 05, 2009, 10:11:42 AM
I don't think that's a requirement, by any means. W had issues with that except when he was talking about foreign wars. (Perhaps that's telling of his attitude)
But, see, that indirectly proves the point. Bush is going down as one of the most unpopular presidents in history. Much of the voting public was fed up with eight years of his intellectual (and general) mediocrity. Palin's shortcomings in that area badly hurt McCain's chances of being elected.
I know of strong Republicans who voted for Obama because the choice of Palin torpedoed McCain's credibility in his claims as a serious and experienced candidate.