(Alternatively, why I need a radio show of my own; it's so much easier and faster to just say all this stuff!)
The following are numerous reasons why President Obama will either break many of his campaign promises or slowly but surely push this country toward a future that will be hard to reverse and horrible to try and keep. It's also worth noting how the same actions are analyzed depending on who is carrying them out - President Bush or President Obama. I suggest to anyone to take a few minutes and read the last few posts on Best of the Web, which is the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto's daily commentary. He sums up a few of the same points perfectly.
Before getting to the stimulus, which is obviously most important, it's worth discussing a few other issues.
Torture: While campaigning, Obama promised, with much support from the hard left, banning torture of terrorist suspects to find out information. Claims of how US soldiers waterboards countless prisoners and other horrible techniques became rallying cries. In reality, however, the US only waterboarded 3 Al Qaeda members in 2003, and learned credible information from each; in total, less than 100 prisoners were subjected to any harsh techniques (sleep deprivation, cold). Recently, President Obama signed into law a piece of paper banning such practices and limiting the CIA to use only what is in the Field Manual (which is what is done to almost all prisoners already). At the same time, he appointed a task force to determine if the Field Manual does not allow them to go far enough in situations where more information might be gathered. In other words, Obama is merely changing the law to a higher level of allowance for torture while decrying the same practices under the Bush administration.
Wiretapping:
Remember those "illegal" wiretaps that so many complained about, and the Bush administration argued were perfectly legal (and limited solely to people contacted from overseas by known combatants)? Well, the same court that supposedly would have a problem with it ruled that Bush was completely within his rights. Whoops. Meanwhile, President Obama now gets to do the same thing without criticism. This is good for America, but it's sad that it was another false drop in the bucket poured over Bush's tenure in office.Speaking of Bush hatred: This piece on Bush hatred and Obama euphoria is fascinating in its approach.
It is not that our universities invest the fundamental principles of liberalism with religious meaning -- after all the Declaration of Independence identifies a religious root of our freedom and equality. Rather, they infuse a certain progressive interpretation of our freedom and equality with sacred significance, zealously requiring not only outward obedience to its policy dictates but inner persuasion of the heart and mind. This transforms dissenters into apostates or heretics, and leaders into redeemers. Consequently, though Bush hatred may weaken as the 43rd president minds his business back home in Texas, and while Obama euphoria may fade as the 44th president is compelled to immerse himself in the daunting ambiguities of power, our universities will continue to educate students to believe that hatred and euphoria reflect political wisdom.World opinion was supposed to be a great Obama strength. But... eh, not so much:
Of course, at least Obama's White House would be transparent and cooperate more with the press... oh, wait:
- Iran. Since President Obama's inauguration, Iran has launched a satellite into space and declared (with an assist from Russia, which is providing the nuclear fuel) that it would complete its long-delayed reactor at Bushehr later this year.
- Afghanistan. This is the war Mr. Obama has said "we have to win" [...] Germany will not, and probably cannot, commit more than 4,500 soldiers to Afghanistan [...] The French have no plans to increase their troop commitment beyond the 3,300 now there. Mr. Obama, by contrast, may double the U.S. commitment to 60,000 troops.
- North Korea. [...] In late January, Pyongyang announced it was unilaterally withdrawing from its 1991 nonaggression pact with the South.
- Pakistan. Perhaps the most unambiguous of the Bush administration's successes was rolling up the nuclear proliferation network of Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan, who was kept under house arrest for five years. [...] Mr. Khan was released last week, ostensibly by order of a Pakistani court, plainly with the consent of the government.
- Russia. [...] Russia will continue to build military bases in Georgia's breakaway republics. It will press ahead with the fueling of the Bushehr reactor.
- The Arab street. [...] so far his efforts at outreach have been met with derision from Arab hard-liners and "liberals" alike.
But Ben LaBolt immediately bristles when asked to spell his name, refuses to give his job title, and says he is going “off the record” until I stop him to explain that the reporter grants that privilege, not the other way around—a basic journalistic standard that LaBolt seems unaware of. He soon hangs up without even hearing what I called to ask about. [...]Then there's capping executive salaries. Sure, it might make sense if you can cap every single executive salary in the country... but you can't. So... if you're smart and talented, and you know that in Bank A you can make a maximum of $500,000, but in Banks B or C you can make $40 million, where are you going to work? This is particularly important when one consideres the lifestyles of such people, and how far half a million doesn't really get them.During our brief conversation, Shapiro, like LaBolt (whose name Shapiro did not recognize), started one sentence with “off the record.” Told that the journalist grants the privilege, and that none would be granted here, Shapiro expressed surprise. His surprise was double-barreled, at both the idea that the reporter issues any privilege and that any reporter would decline to talk “off the record.” [...]
...and that, ladies and gentlemen, is yet another reason why government never competes well with private business, and shouldn't be in the business of private business. Idiots, indeed.
Finally, there's the census. Why, oh why, would a President wish to control the census of the United States of America? Why should a President even be involved in something that should be completely disassociated with the political machine? But the White House now is involved - in the census that will determine the rearrangement of representative districts for Congress, or the way government spends money. Hmm.
I think I'll save the stimulus for another time. Y'all can start reading again. :)
very interesting. i appreciate your perspective. this whole next term is going to be very interesting.
ReplyDeleteTorture:
ReplyDeleteClaims of how US soldiers waterboards countless prisoners and other horrible techniques became rallying cries.
I don't recall anybody claiming the U.S. waterboarded countless prisoners.
In reality,
An op-ed is not a factual source. What anonymous Bush administration officials claim is not proof.
n total, less than 100 prisoners were subjected to any harsh techniques (sleep deprivation, cold).
And we just have to take their word for that.
In other words, Obama is merely changing the law to a higher level of allowance for torture while decrying the same practices under the Bush administration.
That's not "in other words," that's the complete opposite of the truth.
Wiretapping:
Well, the same court that supposedly would have a problem with it ruled that Bush was completely within his rights.
LOL. No wonder you're so messed up. Repeat after me. An op-ed is not a factual source.
Speaking of Bush hatred: This piece on Bush hatred and Obama euphoria is fascinating in its approach.
Yes, Obama has benefited tremendously from following one of the worst presidents in history. We'll see if he can live up to the hype. So far he's done pretty well, in my opinion. In a couple of weeks, he's rolled back torture, extraordinary rendition, the Iraq war, partisanship, and the politicization of the justice department.
World opinion was supposed to be a great Obama strength. But... eh, not so much:
Your counterexamples are stupid. The only remotely relevant point (regarding people not governments) is "the arab street." And you provide a sourceless claim of "derision."
Of course, at least Obama's White House would be transparent and cooperate more with the press... oh, wait:
So weak.
Then there's capping executive salaries. Sure, it might make sense if you can cap every single executive salary in the country... but you can't.
By that same logic, we should pay the president and senators millions of dollars a year. And soldiers should be paid triple. Etc. Look, any executive who's not willing to take the personal hit of making "only" FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR is probably not a guy you want trying to do what's in the bank's (and the country's) long-term interest anyway.
Ezer - Thanks!
ReplyDeleteJA - Torture: Clearly, you haven't been reading LW sites.
In addition, find me evidence that the numbers he cites are incorrect. We've yet to see anything to back left-wing claims, and to say "well, they just cover it up" really is meaningless.
Obama is certainly adjusting the law to allow the same things that were decried about the Bush administration. It's just silliness.
Wiretapping: You can read back on this blog from my friend Prof. Justice (4 parts) on why the wiretapping was certainly within rights. But really, if you doubt the interpretation, go look it up yourself! It's an easily verifiable op-ed. There's a reason people suddenly shut up about the wiretapping... but only after that "drip drip" was accomplished.
LOL on Obama following "one of the worst Presidents", and LOL on his "accomplishments". The rollback of torture was even mocked by some on the left; the closing of Guantanamo as well; he's done nothing different vis a vis Iraq; he has been more partisan than Bush so far (3 members of the GOP in all of Congress support his plan at all?! Pathetic!); and what exactly has he done with the justice department? Don't be fooled by grand gestures.
Meanwhile, his press office is sad. He can't hold press conferences where anyone can ask questions; they now pre-select who asks questions at WH press conferences. Had that been Bush, you'd have blown a gasket. Transparency - not so much. He's accomplished nothing with his "world cred". He's having trouble getting backing (though of course it will pass) on a stimulus plan that is absolutely horrible even though he has all of Congress with him. His appointees consistently have been nailed for tax problems, including his Secretary of the TREASURY, who announced a vague yet dumb plan yesterday that sent the market down 5%. He's on quite the roll so far.
Finally, of course we can't pay people in government unlimited salaries. It's government. It's for exactly that reason that government should not be involved where private companies are!! Private companies can offer unlimited compensation, and any talented person in their right mind will always take the higher-paying job with less government handcuffs! Government never does the job better than private industry because by definition they cannot. The only cases where government is in a better position to do a job are areas like defense. Don't be so naive about reality.
It's also worth noting that anyone who works in a higher position in a White House or serves in Congress will never lack for money, and their benefits are quite good.
ReplyDeleteThe President of the United States only earns $400k, but I saw a piece recently that notes that he utilizes about $40 million in taxpayer money. That's fine and necessary, but it's not like there aren't perks... and he can charge 100k or more easily any speech he gives after he's done. Even Jimmy Carter is doing just fine.
Now, I think bank executives should be paid far more based on long-term actions, which is why they should get more stock options which vest in 5-10 years than cash. But that's a different issue.
JA - Torture: Clearly, you haven't been reading LW sites.
ReplyDeleteIt's true I don't read too many "LW" sites. I read sources I trust... and RW sites to argue with. ;-)
In addition, find me evidence that the numbers he cites are incorrect. We've yet to see anything to back left-wing claims, and to say "well, they just cover it up" really is meaningless.
They said Abu Ghraib was just a "few bad apples" and then we found out that virtually everything depicted in the pictures was authorized from the top. It's not like the administration has a track-record of truthfulness.
Obama is certainly adjusting the law to allow the same things that were decried about the Bush administration. It's just silliness.
No he's not. He commissioned a task force to look into it.
Wiretapping: You can read back on this blog from my friend Prof. Justice (4 parts) on why the wiretapping was certainly within rights.
I remember your friend Prof. Justice and he was a kook. :-)
But really, if you doubt the interpretation, go look it up yourself! It's an easily verifiable op-ed.
Okay, I looked it up. It affirmed the constitutionality of the Protect America Act of 2007. That has nothing to do with the illegal wiretapping of U.S. citizens in the U.S.
There's a reason people suddenly shut up about the wiretapping... but only after that "drip drip" was accomplished.
I don't accept the premise that people suddenly shut up about it. But there is a kernel of truth here -- liberals, myself included, are mad at Obama for supporting legal immunity to telecoms who went along with Bush's blatantly illegal wiretapping.
LOL on Obama following "one of the worst Presidents", and LOL on his "accomplishments".
The idea that Bush is one of the worst presidents is not even particularly controversial at this point, Ezzie.
The rollback of torture was even mocked by some on the left; the closing of Guantanamo as well;
I don't follow.
he's done nothing different vis a vis Iraq;
He ordered the Pentagon to draft a 16-month withdrawal plan. It is true that Bush started coming around to Obama's position late in his term.
he has been more partisan than Bush so far (3 members of the GOP in all of Congress support his plan at all?! Pathetic!);
LOL. 3 Republican (and non-token) cabinet members, totally different tone, etc. The Republicans stonewalling his plan is out of his control. He preemptively compromised on tax cuts and they're playing politics.
and what exactly has he done with the justice department? Don't be fooled by grand gestures.
It's more what he hasn't done, like getting a hack (Goodling) to choose people based on their opinions about abortion, etc.
Meanwhile, his press office is sad. He can't hold press conferences where anyone can ask questions; they now pre-select who asks questions at WH press conferences. Had that been Bush, you'd have blown a gasket.
Bush did the same thing.
Transparency - not so much.
Compare TARP under Bush and Obama.
He's accomplished nothing with his "world cred".
It's been TWO WEEKS.
He's having trouble getting backing (though of course it will pass) on a stimulus plan that is absolutely horrible even though he has all of Congress with him.
How is that his fault?
His appointees consistently have been nailed for tax problems, including his Secretary of the TREASURY, who announced a vague yet dumb plan yesterday that sent the market down 5%. He's on quite the roll so far.
Yeah, that was bad.
Finally, of course we can't pay people in government unlimited salaries. It's government. It's for exactly that reason that government should not be involved where private companies are!! Private companies can offer unlimited compensation, and any talented person in their right mind will always take the higher-paying job with less government handcuffs!
Right, but the banks receiving bailout money aren't totally private in practice. They would be quasi-government for a while.
Government never does the job better than private industry because by definition they cannot. The only cases where government is in a better position to do a job are areas like defense. Don't be so naive about reality.
Government WHEN RUN WELL (i.e. not by people who don't believe in government) does a better job in a number of areas, including future-oriented research, infrastructure for the common good, oversight, regulation, etc. The big insight is that government has different motivations than private enterprise. Governments answer to the people while companies answer to the shareholders.
It's also worth noting that anyone who works in a higher position in a White House or serves in Congress will never lack for money, and their benefits are quite good.
ReplyDeleteThe President of the United States only earns $400k, but I saw a piece recently that notes that he utilizes about $40 million in taxpayer money. That's fine and necessary, but it's not like there aren't perks... and he can charge 100k or more easily any speech he gives after he's done. Even Jimmy Carter is doing just fine.
That's all true, but the same is true of bank CEOs.
It's true I don't read too many "LW" sites. I read sources I trust... and RW sites to argue with. ;-)
ReplyDeleteYou should read what people like you say. It's disturbing. Might make you rethink who you associate with. :)
They said Abu Ghraib was just a "few bad apples" and then we found out that virtually everything depicted in the pictures was authorized from the top.
Er, excuse me? From "the top"? Go check your facts. The White House was furious.
No he's not. He commissioned a task force to look into it.
...and what do you think it's going to say.
I remember your friend Prof. Justice and he was a kook. :-)
LOL - except that "kook" worked for years as a lawyer specializing in wiretapping. Hmmm...
It affirmed the constitutionality of the Protect America Act of 2007. That has nothing to do with the illegal wiretapping of U.S. citizens in the U.S.
LOL. Go read the Act. And you're right, because it wasn't illegal.
But there is a kernel of truth here -- liberals, myself included, are mad at Obama for supporting legal immunity to telecoms who went along with Bush's blatantly illegal wiretapping.
...unless maybe he's actually aware of this. Hmm.
The idea that Bush is one of the worst presidents is not even particularly controversial at this point, Ezzie.
LOLOL - gotta love liberals.
He ordered the Pentagon to draft a 16-month withdrawal plan. It is true that Bush started coming around to Obama's position late in his term.
Hehe - or in other words, after the successful surge, it made sense, as opposed to before it.
LOL. 3 Republican (and non-token) cabinet members, totally different tone, etc. The Republicans stonewalling his plan is out of his control. He preemptively compromised on tax cuts and they're playing politics.
?! Where'd he compromise on tax cuts? He even took out the corporate tax cut he promised his whole campaign because Senate Dems don't want it, as doing so would acknowledge that tax cuts do work, and that would shift the playing field forever.
It's more what he hasn't done, like getting a hack (Goodling) to choose people based on their opinions about abortion, etc.
You're kidding yourself if you think he doesn't appoint hacks.
Bush did the same thing.
Not to this extent, and not this blatantly. The cries about Bush's admin editing transcripts to make things clearer are nothing in comparison to the Obama admin only publishing the excerpts they want to, and to preset who is asking Q's?! That was almost never under Bush.
Compare TARP under Bush and Obama.
You'd *think* that after the colossal failure of TARP I, there'd be less of a rush to do it again! And might I remind you that it is the Right/GOP that were very wary of TARP, while the left loved it. It was also passed by a fully Democratic Congress - with plenty of GOP support, yes, but they got nailed by the conservative wing for it. Not sure what you're proving there except that Obama is making a bigger mistake than Bush, and this right after seeing the one Bush made. That's just stupid.
It's been TWO WEEKS.
Right! And in just two weeks, you have a guy who designs nukes let go, countries Obama supposedly had a ton of support from balking at the idea of putting any more troops out, North Korea immediately feeling safe to pull out of their treaty, and Iran pushing the envelope yet again. All things they could have done at any time, but didn't dare to under Bush. Hmm...
How is that his fault?
He could have stripped down half the spending. He could have pushed for the inclusion of corporate tax cuts. (Those are pretty much the biggest two - the spending includes about 1/2 a trillion.)
Right, but the banks receiving bailout money aren't totally private in practice. They would be quasi-government for a while.
Agreed. I'm not saying they can't do it - I'm saying it's dumb. You're just pushing every talented individual to leave any partially-nationalized bank and go private until the banks buy themselves back from government. Basically, you're turning every bank taxpayer money is now invested in into something that will be run by the only people who couldn't find a job in private, or those who probably aren't all that good. Wonderful.
Government WHEN RUN WELL (i.e. not by people who don't believe in government) does a better job in a number of areas, including future-oriented research, infrastructure for the common good, oversight, regulation, etc. The big insight is that government has different motivations than private enterprise. Governments answer to the people while companies answer to the shareholders.
Show me areas where government "Runs Well". Infrastructure for the common good is like defense. I actually am willing to defend the bridge-building and road repair in the stimulus. Unfortunately, that's only about $30 billion out of $830. Oversight and regulation are only sometimes useful (say, FDA setting health regulations). Often, they are redundant and unnecessary, wasting money and killing good ideas and innovation by making progress too expensive. (More on that later, when I write about the stimulus.)
You should read what people like you say. It's disturbing. Might make you rethink who you associate with. :)
ReplyDeleteIf it's disturbing, then they're not "people like me." :-) Are Coulter and Michael Savage "people like you?"
Er, excuse me? From "the top"? Go check your facts. The White House was furious.
They were furious it got out. Please tell me which techniques they did not authorize. The only one I can think of is the guy with the electrodes.
...and what do you think it's going to say.
Beats me, but the fact remains that you are 100% wrong.
LOL - except that "kook" worked for years as a lawyer specializing in wiretapping. Hmmm...
Yes, because lawyers always make impartial arguments. LOL.
LOL. Go read the Act. And you're right, because it wasn't illegal.
You're saying that at the time they started doing it, it was legal to wiretap American citizens without court approval?
?! Where'd he compromise on tax cuts? He even took out the corporate tax cut he promised his whole campaign because Senate Dems don't want it, as doing so would acknowledge that tax cuts do work, and that would shift the playing field forever.
He included a third of the "spending" as tax cuts.
You're kidding yourself if you think he doesn't appoint hacks.
Show me someone in the same galaxy as Goodling.
Not to this extent, and not this blatantly. The cries about Bush's admin editing transcripts to make things clearer are nothing in comparison to the Obama admin only publishing the excerpts they want to, and to preset who is asking Q's?! That was almost never under Bush.
Bush didn't choose to call on some people and not others?
You'd *think* that after the colossal failure of TARP I, there'd be less of a rush to do it again!
It was a failure because the banks didn't use the money to lend. That's why the new rules.
And might I remind you that it is the Right/GOP that were very wary of TARP, while the left loved it.
The left recognized it needed to be done. Bush did too, since he was more worried about not going down in history as Hoover II than about appeasing the wingnut base.
Right! And in just two weeks, you have a guy who designs nukes let go, countries Obama supposedly had a ton of support from balking at the idea of putting any more troops out, North Korea immediately feeling safe to pull out of their treaty, and Iran pushing the envelope yet again. All things they could have done at any time, but didn't dare to under Bush. Hmm...
None of that is his doing.
He could have stripped down half the spending. He could have pushed for the inclusion of corporate tax cuts. (Those are pretty much the biggest two - the spending includes about 1/2 a trillion.)
The spending is the most important part!
You're just pushing every talented individual to leave any partially-nationalized bank and go private until the banks buy themselves back from government.
No, just the completely selfish ones.
Basically, you're turning every bank taxpayer money is now invested in into something that will be run by the only people who couldn't find a job in private, or those who probably aren't all that good.
I'm constantly disgusted by the right's view of human nature -- that the only people who would do the right thing are those who have no other options.
Show me areas where government "Runs Well".
I just did, and it sounds like you agree.
If it's disturbing, then they're not "people like me." :-) Are Coulter and Michael Savage "people like you?"
ReplyDeleteOf course not. But I still think it's important to know.
They were furious it got out. Please tell me which techniques they did not authorize. The only one I can think of is the guy with the electrodes.
Stacking bodies on one another? Taking pictures? Etc. etc.
Beats me, but the fact remains that you are 100% wrong.
Doubt it. We'll see - but clearly, Obama is making a nice gesture while in practice at least setting himself up to be able to do the same thing.
Yes, because lawyers always make impartial arguments. LOL.
But he was right. :)
You're saying that at the time they started doing it, it was legal to wiretap American citizens without court approval?
Yes! That's exactly the point of the ruling. The President has the authority to carry out reasonable search under the 4th Amendment, which only protects against unreasonable searches! People who are communicating with known overseas terrorists would qualify as those who are subject to reasonable search, certainly in the context of their phone call! Just to be cute - it makes more sense than being checked when taking a flight. :)
He included a third of the "spending" as tax cuts.
Less than a third, actually. And did you see what they are? Rather a corporate tax cut that would boost the economy, there are cuts for specific industries that are Dem supporters, like Hollywood - and Hollywood was one of the rare industries that did well this year.
Show me someone in the same galaxy as Goodling.
Explain to me what Goodling did that was so hackish that isn't similar to any party appointee.
Bush didn't choose to call on some people and not others?
Rarely. How often did we hear from Helen Thomas? And he certainly didn't decide in advance who would be allowed to ask a question at which conference. This is eerily like when certain media got blacklisted by the Obama campaign for asking tough questions.
It was a failure because the banks didn't use the money to lend. That's why the new rules.
LOL. What did they do with it exactly? The new rules are going to have the same problems as we have had for a number of years - forced lending. Forced lending is BAD FOR THE ECONOMY, because there's a reason they couldn't get the loans!!
The left recognized it needed to be done. Bush did too, since he was more worried about not going down in history as Hoover II than about appeasing the wingnut base.
LOL. So instead, Bush and Obama will go down as combining to create the worst depression? You do know that FDR New Deal extended the Depression for almost a decade, right?
None of that is his doing.
LOL! So it's just chance that within two weeks of Obama taking office, all of these happened? Riiight.
The spending is the most important part!
You're a fool! Are you serious?! Spending on wasteful projects and special interests will reinvigorate the economy!? Really!??! How?! By creating jobs that have no material output!?
No, just the completely selfish ones.
LOL. Gotta love liberal utopianism. Seriously - let's say you earn $75k/year. The government takes you over and slashes it to $20k. You can stay or go elsewhere and get 60-80k. Are you staying? No. And if you were earning $6 million and got slashed to $500,000, which won't even cover your typical bills at the lifestyle you live, you're going to stay? No. Hell - maybe you're right. Let's cap salaries for EVERYONE in America. Every dollar you earn over $500,000 should go straight to government, who will spend it on less selfish things than you. That'll work!
I'm constantly disgusted by the right's view of human nature -- that the only people who would do the right thing are those who have no other options.
LOL. It has a lot less to do with the "right thing" and a lot more to do with "what am I giving up". I don't see you giving out all of your assets to poor people, or housing homeless people in your apartment. (Then again, perhaps you are - feel free to correct me.) People who earn millions of dollars a year will not suddenly be content earning 1/2 a million. It's mind-boggling how the left thinks that how they would like the world to work is actually how it works - particularly when almost none of them practice what they preach.
90% of what's in the stimulus has little to do with large infrastructure along the lines of defense or roads. (Again, when I write about the stimulus, you'll see.) There's about $300B in there that you can argue has positive utility, and that's stretching it. That's an INSANE amount of waste.
Of course not. But I still think it's important to know.
ReplyDeleteI'd rather not waste my time on hacks.
Stacking bodies on one another? Taking pictures? Etc. etc.
And those are WORSE than the techniques they did authorize?? The treating like animals, the sexual humiliation, exposure to extreme temperatures, sleep deprivation, etc.?? You're saying they were furious because of the body stacking and photos? Well, yeah, because the photos got out, maybe.
Doubt it. We'll see - but clearly, Obama is making a nice gesture while in practice at least setting himself up to be able to do the same thing.
We will see. But note that you claimed he'd already done what you're now saying we'll see if he does in the future.
Yes! That's exactly the point of the ruling. The President has the authority to carry out reasonable search under the 4th Amendment, which only protects against unreasonable searches! People who are communicating with known overseas terrorists would qualify as those who are subject to reasonable search, certainly in the context of their phone call! Just to be cute - it makes more sense than being checked when taking a flight. :)
When you're checked for a flight, you know about it. The NSA under Bush was wiretapping reporters.
Less than a third, actually. And did you see what they are? Rather a corporate tax cut that would boost the economy, there are cuts for specific industries that are Dem supporters, like Hollywood - and Hollywood was one of the rare industries that did well this year.
What percent of the tax cut went to Hollywood?
Explain to me what Goodling did that was so hackish that isn't similar to any party appointee.
Where have you been??
For nearly two years, a young political aide sought to cultivate a "farm system" for Republicans at the Justice Department, hiring scores of prosecutors and immigration judges who espoused conservative priorities and Christian lifestyle choices.
That aide, Monica M. Goodling, exercised what amounted to veto power over a wide range of critical jobs, asking candidates for their views on abortion and same-sex marriage and maneuvering around senior officials who outranked her, including the department's second-in-command.
An extensive report by the department's Office of the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility concluded yesterday that Goodling and others had broken civil service laws, run afoul of department policy and engaged in "misconduct," a finding that could expose them to further scrutiny and sanctions. The report depicted Goodling as a central figure in politicizing employment decisions at Justice during the Bush administration.
Rarely. How often did we hear from Helen Thomas? And he certainly didn't decide in advance who would be allowed to ask a question at which conference. This is eerily like when certain media got blacklisted by the Obama campaign for asking tough questions.
LOL. "Certain media." Like FOX, who were specifically out to get him.
LOL. What did they do with it exactly? The new rules are going to have the same problems as we have had for a number of years - forced lending. Forced lending is BAD FOR THE ECONOMY, because there's a reason they couldn't get the loans!!
Forced lending is not bad when the forcer is providing the money!
LOL. So instead, Bush and Obama will go down as combining to create the worst depression? You do know that FDR New Deal extended the Depression for almost a decade, right?
GARGH. This is the most frustrating thing about arguing with Republicans. You have your own alternate history. Here you are presenting the idea that the New Deal extended the Depression as a fact, when that's really an extremist wingnut position.
LOL! So it's just chance that within two weeks of Obama taking office, all of these happened? Riiight.
Ok, how did Obama cause Iran's satellite, NK's actions, etc.?
You're a fool! Are you serious?! Spending on wasteful projects and special interests will reinvigorate the economy!? Really!??! How?! By creating jobs that have no material output!?
I didn't say spending on wasteful projects, I said spending. Spending is stimulus. That's the whole frickin' point.
LOL. Gotta love liberal utopianism. Seriously - let's say you earn $75k/year. The government takes you over and slashes it to $20k.
Pretty big difference between $20k, where you can't support a family, and $500k, where maybe you can't buy that yacht.
You can stay or go elsewhere and get 60-80k. Are you staying? No. And if you were earning $6 million and got slashed to $500,000, which won't even cover your typical bills at the lifestyle you live, you're going to stay? No.
CEOs of troubled companies never agree to take no salary or a nominal salary of $1 for a while until things get turned around? Haven't you posted on this very blog a story about a CEO taking a huge personal hit to make sure his employees were paid after a fire?
Hell - maybe you're right. Let's cap salaries for EVERYONE in America. Every dollar you earn over $500,000 should go straight to government, who will spend it on less selfish things than you. That'll work!
The 500$k cap isn't a permanent idea -- it's a short-term measure to set the tone for turning things around.
LOL. It has a lot less to do with the "right thing" and a lot more to do with "what am I giving up". I don't see you giving out all of your assets to poor people, or housing homeless people in your apartment. (Then again, perhaps you are - feel free to correct me.) People who earn millions of dollars a year will not suddenly be content earning 1/2 a million. It's mind-boggling how the left thinks that how they would like the world to work is actually how it works - particularly when almost none of them practice what they preach.
Right. Nobody's ever taken a pay-cut for the good of their employees. Hell, there are PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES who have done that for the good of the team.
90% of what's in the stimulus has little to do with large infrastructure along the lines of defense or roads. (Again, when I write about the stimulus, you'll see.) There's about $300B in there that you can argue has positive utility, and that's stretching it. That's an INSANE amount of waste.
That's probably true, but we can't really do better, especially with the Republicans pretending that the whole concept of stimulus is bullshit. That's just the way government works.
I'd rather not waste my time on hacks.
ReplyDeleteIt's good to know what the loudmouths on either side say.
And those are WORSE than the techniques they did authorize?? The treating like animals, the sexual humiliation, exposure to extreme temperatures, sleep deprivation, etc.?? You're saying they were furious because of the body stacking and photos? Well, yeah, because the photos got out, maybe.
There's a far cry from sleep deprivation and shame to "treating like animals" and "sexual humiliation".
We will see. But note that you claimed he'd already done what you're now saying we'll see if he does in the future.
He has already done it. He's just done it more cleverly. I'd be shocked if the findings were that the Field Manual is enough.
When you're checked for a flight, you know about it. The NSA under Bush was wiretapping reporters.
LOL. Where? When? Are you talking about anything that has to do with FISA and what people were complaining about? And who says reasonable has anything to do with whether the person knows about it?
What percent of the tax cut went to Hollywood?
Not sure (and also not sure why tax cuts are being assigned set numbers in a stimulus, but okay). But seeing as how it's on capital expenses yet to happen, all it's done is allow Hollywood the ability to expand and produce more. I have no problem with this, by the way; I just don't see why the same courtesy wasn't extended to businesses of all types, particularly ones who are struggling while Hollywood is doing just fine.
Goodling
And when the same type of questions are asked of people now, but flipped, what will you say? "Are you against allowing equal rights to gays, such as same-sex marriage?" (Bad example because Obama is against SSM, but I mean in theory.) "Are you supportive of a woman's choice?" Etc.
LOL. "Certain media." Like FOX, who were specifically out to get him.
Er, actually, I meant local stations, which were CBS and ABC affiliates, if I recall correctly.
Forced lending is not bad when the forcer is providing the money!
YES IT IS!! It's money that will NEVER BE REPAID. Your tax dollars - on fire.
GARGH. This is the most frustrating thing about arguing with Republicans. You have your own alternate history. Here you are presenting the idea that the New Deal extended the Depression as a fact, when that's really an extremist wingnut position.
!!!! You're nuts! Go look at GDP, the DOW, or ANY OTHER MEASURE from then! It didn't start to reverse until WWII! Are you serious?! This is something any economist or historian could tell you. Heck, you could see for yourself!
Ok, how did Obama cause Iran's satellite, NK's actions, etc.?
Better question - how is it that none of these - which could have been done at any time in the last couple years - did not happen until Obama took office?
I didn't say spending on wasteful projects, I said spending. Spending is stimulus. That's the whole frickin' point.
LOL. Except more than half of this "stimulus" IS wasteful spending.
Pretty big difference between $20k, where you can't support a family, and $500k, where maybe you can't buy that yacht.
You're avoiding the point. And $20k is enough to live on - just not the way you're accustomed to. Move to Cleveland.
CEOs of troubled companies never agree to take no salary or a nominal salary of $1 for a while until things get turned around? Haven't you posted on this very blog a story about a CEO taking a huge personal hit to make sure his employees were paid after a fire?
Sure - and they often collect huge bonuses after. And in that situation, a CEO did an extraordinary thing to save the jobs of his workers until things could turn around. I don't think there's that clear nobility in letting government drive your bank into the ground.
The 500$k cap isn't a permanent idea -- it's a short-term measure to set the tone for turning things around.
LOL. So it's a grand gesture that's just completely moronic because it has no lasting positive effects and plenty of short- and long-term negative ones. Nice.
Right. Nobody's ever taken a pay-cut for the good of their employees. Hell, there are PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES who have done that for the good of the team.
LOL - yeah, they take a slight cut off their tens of millions so a team can better compete for a championship (which may or may not net them even greater money down the road, and lets them fulfill life dreams). That's similar to government taking away 90% of your money to make a statement, and you not having a choice about it.
That's probably true, but we can't really do better, especially with the Republicans pretending that the whole concept of stimulus is bullshit. That's just the way government works.
LOL - and here, I thought *I* was cynical about government. Firstly - government CAN do better. Second, if you know it's 65% crap, why the hell would you support it? Why would you believe it's going to help? Republicans are not saying stimulus is BS - they're saying that pork projects aren't stimulus. This package is BS, after the last one was horribly managed. Government sucks at carrying things out. That's why this is going to hurt this country for a decade.
any executive who's not willing to take the personal hit of making "only" FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR is probably not a guy you want trying to do what's in the bank's (and the country's) long-term interest anyway.
ReplyDeleteWhat!?
It's good to know what the loudmouths on either side say.
ReplyDeleteSure, I have some idea of what's going on. I watched Farenheit 9/11, etc. I just don't waste a bunch of time on it.
There's a far cry from sleep deprivation and shame to "treating like animals" and "sexual humiliation".
Treating like animals and nakedness were authorized.
He has already done it. He's just done it more cleverly. I'd be shocked if the findings were that the Field Manual is enough.
How has he "already done it?"
LOL. Where? When? Are you talking about anything that has to do with FISA and what people were complaining about? And who says reasonable has anything to do with whether the person knows about it?
Russell Tice, former NSA analyst, has said that the NSA targetted journalists for wiretapping.
And when the same type of questions are asked of people now, but flipped, what will you say? "Are you against allowing equal rights to gays, such as same-sex marriage?" (Bad example because Obama is against SSM, but I mean in theory.) "Are you supportive of a woman's choice?" Etc.
Absolutely, 100% unacceptable in a job interview for civil service positions.
YES IT IS!! It's money that will NEVER BE REPAID. Your tax dollars - on fire.
Why won't it be repaid?
!!!! You're nuts! Go look at GDP, the DOW, or ANY OTHER MEASURE from then! It didn't start to reverse until WWII! Are you serious?! This is something any economist or historian could tell you. Heck, you could see for yourself!
You said the New Deal extended the Great Depression. Don't move the goalposts.
Better question - how is it that none of these - which could have been done at any time in the last couple years - did not happen until Obama took office?
"Better" question maybe, but different. You said Obama caused these things, which is obviously ridiculous.
LOL. Except more than half of this "stimulus" IS wasteful spending.
Wasteful according to you.
You're avoiding the point. And $20k is enough to live on - just not the way you're accustomed to. Move to Cleveland.
Maybe in Cleveland. I do know that if I had been instrumental in bringing down the world economy, I'd be man enough to accept *only* $500,000 for a couple of years until things got back on track.
Sure - and they often collect huge bonuses after. And in that situation, a CEO did an extraordinary thing to save the jobs of his workers until things could turn around. I don't think there's that clear nobility in letting government drive your bank into the ground.
The banks drove themselves into the ground. All the government is doing is saying, here's a whole bunch of money to keep you afloat... we just ask that you don't use it to pay yourselves millions of dollars a year!
LOL. So it's a grand gesture that's just completely moronic because it has no lasting positive effects and plenty of short- and long-term negative ones. Nice.
I agree it's a gesture, but it's an important one. It says that things have to change and we can't think only about short-term profits. And we can't treat the bailout money like our personal goody bag.
LOL - yeah, they take a slight cut off their tens of millions so a team can better compete for a championship (which may or may not net them even greater money down the road, and lets them fulfill life dreams). That's similar to government taking away 90% of your money to make a statement, and you not having a choice about it.
The government IS NOT TAKING ONE CENT AWAY FROM THE CEOS. They're GIVING MONEY to the banks and specifying that it can't go to the CEOs pockets. And because money is fungible, the only way to enforce that is to say that any company that takes that money has to limit it's CEO salary to $500k.
LOL - and here, I thought *I* was cynical about government. Firstly - government CAN do better. Second, if you know it's 65% crap, why the hell would you support it? Why would you believe it's going to help?
I'm not agreeing it's 65% crap, I'm just saying we wouldn't have been able to put together a majority in Congress without all that crap.
Republicans are not saying stimulus is BS - they're saying that pork projects aren't stimulus.
And they're wrong.
This package is BS, after the last one was horribly managed. Government sucks at carrying things out. That's why this is going to hurt this country for a decade.
Government sucks when irresponsible Republicans run it. It doesn't always suck. IF we'd had a responsible president or Congress the last 8 years we wouldn't be in this hole. Note that the Iraq war alone cost more than the entire stimulus package.
And why didn't Republicans give Bush 0 votes then?
ReplyDeleteSure, I have some idea of what's going on. I watched Farenheit 9/11, etc. I just don't waste a bunch of time on it.
ReplyDeleteFair enough. Neither do I. A couple minutes of ranting is usually enough to get an idea. :)
Treating like animals and nakedness were authorized.
No. There's a reason I never commented on that post. You jumped from their authorization of certain tactics to their allowing what happened at Abu Gharaib - quite the jump. You also lumped everything together. Most of what they were talking about was Guantanamo, which people can reasonably disagree as to whether it was right. AG was a far cry from that, and was implemented after GTMO and Afghanistan. There had been no issues like AG in those instances, and they did not expect what is noted clearly at the end of your excerpt: What followed was an erosion in standards dictating that detainees be treated humanely. That erosion only occurred in AG, after it had worked fine in GTMO and Afghanistan. Say what you want about whether you agree with the practices at GTMO, but AG was not "okayed from the top".
How has he "already done it?"
By simultaneously finding a way to allow the same thing he's supposedly striking down! It's within the same document he signed. It's a game so he can say he banned torture, while changing what is considered torture and what is interrogation. If Bush did the same thing you'd have gone nuts.
Russell Tice, former NSA analyst, has said that the NSA targetted journalists for wiretapping.
Proof? And again, how does this relate to the complaints vis a vis the FISA situation?
Absolutely, 100% unacceptable in a job interview for civil service positions.
Okay. I will hold you to that.
Why won't it be repaid?
Because they're bad loans! How do you think the current crisis started!?
You said the New Deal extended the Great Depression. Don't move the goalposts.
It did. The recovery didn't start until the war. Go check.
"Better" question maybe, but different. You said Obama caused these things, which is obviously ridiculous.
Er, no. I said that they happened while he was in office, which says something about his effect on "world opinion" - he's not respected, and our enemies are more comfortable pushing the envelope in ways they did not under Bush. He didn't do anything to "cause" it; he just didn't make them feel that they could not. Bush did. Advantage worldwide: Bush.
Wasteful according to you.
Oh come on. Even Pelosi isn't hiding it. Go look at the projects and tell me they aren't wasteful pork. Show me how they: Create jobs, stimulate the economy, cut out debt... please.
Maybe in Cleveland. I do know that if I had been instrumental in bringing down the world economy, I'd be man enough to accept *only* $500,000 for a couple of years until things got back on track.
LOL. Well, why wouldn't you move to Cleveland? More importantly, do you really believe that these CEOs are somehow personally responsible for the mess? And finally, most importantly - all seriousness - do you really believe that they are going to stick around, or that anyone who's good will, with a capped salary?
The banks drove themselves into the ground. All the government is doing is saying, here's a whole bunch of money to keep you afloat... we just ask that you don't use it to pay yourselves millions of dollars a year!
Sure, nice idea, except the people will say: Nah, thanks. It's okay. We'll just move over to Goldman Sachs and earn a cool million and not deal with dumb government stiffs and regulations every day. Thanks, though! Seriously - do you not get that that's what happens in the real world?
I agree it's a gesture, but it's an important one. It says that things have to change and we can't think only about short-term profits. And we can't treat the bailout money like our personal goody bag.
That's nice, but gestures are meaningless and tend to backfire. Like this one will. Either they'll leave, or stay knowing that they'll compensate for it in the next years.
The government IS NOT TAKING ONE CENT AWAY FROM THE CEOS. They're GIVING MONEY to the banks and specifying that it can't go to the CEOs pockets. And because money is fungible, the only way to enforce that is to say that any company that takes that money has to limit it's CEO salary to $500k.
Er, reducing someone's earnings is essentially taking money away, even if it technically is not. If I cut your salary from $75k to $20k, you'd wonder why I'm taking away your money.
Plus, they actually ARE taking money. They're taking back money that was already given out in bonuses in 2008 (though how that will stand up in court is beyond me, seeing as how they didn't have the clause at the time).
Wanna know what would have been smarter? Telling the CEOs that they will receive payment primarily in stock options, which will vest over a 5-year period. Even better, rather than creating new shares and diluting the value, they government could pay them in shares of the company that the government has. This would allow the government to slowly pull out of the banks, while letting the CEOs earn only based on how well they perform.
I'm not agreeing it's 65% crap, I'm just saying we wouldn't have been able to put together a majority in Congress without all that crap.
Really? A popular President couldn't push a plan that shows responsibility, a clear formulation of how this will boost the economy, and avoids pork? Do you really believe that any Congressman or Senator is going to vote against a project that is clearly wise and being pushed by Obama right now? If he'd presented a viable plan he could have easily had heavy bipartisan support. Instead, he let Pelosi manage it, and it's a bunch of pork projects and special interests. Obama blew his first shot at making serious change. (Also: Scalpel my @$$.)
And they're wrong.
LOL. How?!?! Show me how any of these projects will boost the economy.
Government sucks when irresponsible Republicans run it. It doesn't always suck. IF we'd had a responsible president or Congress the last 8 years we wouldn't be in this hole. Note that the Iraq war alone cost more than the entire stimulus package.
LOL. That's a joke. The Dems had at least part of Congress for four of those eight, and the concentration in the middle was on Iraq. Yet even then, the economy did well.
And why didn't Republicans give Bush 0 votes then?
Good question! Perhaps they should have. One can argue, as many did at the time, that it was undesired but necessary. Of course, that was assuming that government would wisely use the TARP funds. Most people were skeptical, but at least it was arguable.
Now that it was clearly a colossal failure, it's mind-boggling that Obama is proposing to do the same, except with much worse projects and with no sense that it will somehow be implemented better.
Ugh. I'm too frustrated to go on, sorry.
ReplyDelete>I didn't say spending on wasteful projects, I said spending. Spending is stimulus. That's the whole frickin' point.
ReplyDeleteIS that the point???
Stimulus is to stimulate people buying. How is funding technological research or other pet interest projecting stimulating people spending money?
Love this thread. Love it. Go, Ezzie! BTW, the link you provided on living on "only" $500,000 contains a very crucial expense in its breakdown of how far such a salary goes: off the top, the taxes ALONE on that amount are $269,000 per year, NOT counting any sales taxes!! Plus, that money goes to pay for many employees, from the personal trainer to the gardener, who all lose when a high-paid exec earns less.
ReplyDelete