POLL: Do you Think President Obama is a Partisan Democrat?

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

All I can say is you must have been asleep during the first two months of Obama's presidency. Prior to approval of the Stimulus Bill, both McConnell and Boehner were already grumbling, so Obama actually paid a visit to THEM on Capitol Hill, rather than summoning them to the Oval Office. That happened the last week in January, as I recall, but thereafter the Republicans gathered all their wagons in a circle and decided to grandstand against any stimulus package at all. Boehner was inyourface on this even more than Pelosi, revving up the herd to JUST SAY NO. McConnell, being a little more gentlemanly, did the same thing only sounding a little less like an asshole.

Obama appointed Ray LaHood, a Republican, as Transportation Secretary, offered the Commerce post to Judd Gregg who, accepting the position then turning it down, couldn't wait to get on television and blast Obama from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other.

And you wonder why, after just over 200 days of this nonstop bullshit, Obama is appearing more partisan?

I was about to respond and navy beat me to it.

Let's see let me recap.

800 Billion dollar stimulus introduced with on a Thursday evening prior to debate its over 1000 pages long gave members little time to actually read it. The bill has resulted in such things as 3.2 million dollars spent on turtle tunnels, 1.7 million on marsh mice studies, and a whole host of spending that will not create jobs, and all this in the face of statements made along these lines , that unemployment will not rise above 8.5% with it's passage. This bill is a disaster and is showing as a disaster and no amount of spin will make it better.

1.2 Trillion for a cap and Trade bill that over 300 pages was presented in the middle of the night and was not even given to members and assumed they would go to the congressional web page to read it. However, debate went forward with amendments cut off and here is another bill that proposes more Govt. mandates and add to the deficit.

1.6 Trillion for a healthcare bill that Nancy Pelosi is determined to ram through the house regardless how much damage it will do.

So spare me this notion of how much the democrats are doing things so well, when by the end of this year if all these bills actually pass into law, the deficit will be tripled in one year of Obama's Administration. So please spare me this notion of how much the democrats care when the plan on turning this nation into a 3rd world backwater.

That is not reaching out.

 

[MaggieMae]

All I can say is you must have been asleep during the first two months of Obama's presidency. Prior to approval of the Stimulus Bill, both McConnell and Boehner were already grumbling, so Obama actually paid a visit to THEM on Capitol Hill, rather than summoning them to the Oval Office. That happened the last week in January, as I recall, but thereafter the Republicans gathered all their wagons in a circle and decided to grandstand against any stimulus package at all. Boehner was inyourface on this even more than Pelosi, revving up the herd to JUST SAY NO. McConnell, being a little more gentlemanly, did the same thing only sounding a little less like an asshole.

Obama appointed Ray LaHood, a Republican, as Transportation Secretary, offered the Commerce post to Judd Gregg who, accepting the position then turning it down, couldn't wait to get on television and blast Obama from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other.

And you wonder why, after just over 200 days of this nonstop bullshit, Obama is appearing more partisan?

I was about to respond and navy beat me to it.

Let's see let me recap.

800 Billion dollar stimulus introduced with on a Thursday evening prior to debate its over 1000 pages long gave members little time to actually read it. The bill has resulted in such things as 3.2 million dollars spent on turtle tunnels, 1.7 million on marsh mice studies, and a whole host of spending that will not create jobs, and all this in the face of statements made along these lines , that unemployment will not rise above 8.5% with it's passage. This bill is a disaster and is showing as a disaster and no amount of spin will make it better.

1.2 Trillion for a cap and Trade bill that over 300 pages was presented in the middle of the night and was not even given to members and assumed they would go to the congressional web page to read it. However, debate went forward with amendments cut off and here is another bill that proposes more Govt. mandates and add to the deficit.

1.6 Trillion for a healthcare bill that Nancy Pelosi is determined to ram through the house regardless how much damage it will do.

So spare me this notion of how much the democrats are doing things so well, when by the end of this year if all these bills actually pass into law, the deficit will be tripled in one year of Obama's Administration. So please spare me this notion of how much the democrats care when the plan on turning this nation into a 3rd world backwater.

That is not reaching out.

And of course I see you skipped right over my response. Why am I never surprised that this happens.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

All I can say is you must have been asleep during the first two months of Obama's presidency. Prior to approval of the Stimulus Bill, both McConnell and Boehner were already grumbling, so Obama actually paid a visit to THEM on Capitol Hill, rather than summoning them to the Oval Office. That happened the last week in January, as I recall, but thereafter the Republicans gathered all their wagons in a circle and decided to grandstand against any stimulus package at all. Boehner was inyourface on this even more than Pelosi, revving up the herd to JUST SAY NO. McConnell, being a little more gentlemanly, did the same thing only sounding a little less like an asshole.

Obama appointed Ray LaHood, a Republican, as Transportation Secretary, offered the Commerce post to Judd Gregg who, accepting the position then turning it down, couldn't wait to get on television and blast Obama from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other.

And you wonder why, after just over 200 days of this nonstop bullshit, Obama is appearing more partisan?

I was about to respond and navy beat me to it.

Let's see let me recap.

800 Billion dollar stimulus introduced with on a Thursday evening prior to debate its over 1000 pages long gave members little time to actually read it. The bill has resulted in such things as 3.2 million dollars spent on turtle tunnels, 1.7 million on marsh mice studies, and a whole host of spending that will not create jobs, and all this in the face of statements made along these lines , that unemployment will not rise above 8.5% with it's passage. This bill is a disaster and is showing as a disaster and no amount of spin will make it better.

1.2 Trillion for a cap and Trade bill that over 300 pages was presented in the middle of the night and was not even given to members and assumed they would go to the congressional web page to read it. However, debate went forward with amendments cut off and here is another bill that proposes more Govt. mandates and add to the deficit.

1.6 Trillion for a healthcare bill that Nancy Pelosi is determined to ram through the house regardless how much damage it will do.

So spare me this notion of how much the democrats are doing things so well, when by the end of this year if all these bills actually pass into law, the deficit will be tripled in one year of Obama's Administration. So please spare me this notion of how much the democrats care when the plan on turning this nation into a 3rd world backwater.

That is not reaching out.

And of course I see you skipped right over my response. Why am I never surprised that this happens.

wait i may have just missed it, trying to catch up in the short time i have here.

I'll go back and look for it now i promise

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

[
1. You people still just...don't...get...it. Show me the provisions relating to turtles and mice in the Stimulus Bill. Please. I'm sure everyone else is curious too. Could it be you are clueless HOW the money is distributed? Actually, a lot of it has not been distributed to the states because they will not be getting blank checks, which is a good thing for God's sake!!)

The majority of the $787 billion isn't pork. Indeed, tax relief alone makes up some 34% of the bill. Where you might find the pork is in the so-called discretionary spending portion of the bill, which amount to $308 billion, according to the CBO. Of that money, $48 billion goes to the Department of Transportation for various rail and road projects to repair and expand infrastructure. That leaves about $260 billion of discretionary spending that goes to various federal agencies, as well as to state and local governments. How much of that amount helps special interests instead of the economy depends, of course, on what you consider a special interest.

2. Agreement on health care reform remains ellusive even as I post this.
3. There’s still a long road ahead for the legislation on cap and trade. The Senate isn’t expected to take up the issue until fall at the earliest—and the path to passage there will be tougher than passage in the House.

Listen, folks, if you want to bash Obama--go for it. But stop with the lies about where things stand, will ya?

260 billion, if I use that number, is still 1/3 or 33% of the total bill going to Pork projects and not intended to be used directly for the stimulus of the economy

If I use the 308 billion that percentage jumps up to 39%

As a person who is financially smart with my personal money (I owe ZERO in debt and yes I have a home) I find that over 30% of a bill that was meant to use my tax money to help people going to special interests of various politicians unaccepatable


The problem with agreement is that NONE of the republican ideas got into the bill, the democrats are pushing it as an all or nothing deal, and neither side is willing to comprimise with the opposite.

In addition many people have legitimate concerns with having the same govt that can even balance a savings account (social security) or run a health care system (VA hospitals) well, or even understand/read the health bill (Conyers). With those 3 things alone it makes it tough for people with open minds to support the congress' current health care proposal.

The problem with cap and trade is we can see the effects of similar policies in other countries that adopted them several years ago. Austrailia, england, and many european economies are having trouble in part due to their similar policies

 

[bigdaddygtr]

Little Lord Obammyroy has been and will always be as ILliberal as they come.

He's as pure an authoritarian statist as we've had in the nation's history.

That is the biggest BULLSHIT line ever written on this board.

 

[Navy1960]

Hmm Maggie, I was under the impression that the rather long post about the Stimulus that I had put up earlier #80 was a response to you.

 

[MaggieMae]

[
1. You people still just...don't...get...it. Show me the provisions relating to turtles and mice in the Stimulus Bill. Please. I'm sure everyone else is curious too. Could it be you are clueless HOW the money is distributed? Actually, a lot of it has not been distributed to the states because they will not be getting blank checks, which is a good thing for God's sake!!)

The majority of the $787 billion isn't pork. Indeed, tax relief alone makes up some 34% of the bill. Where you might find the pork is in the so-called discretionary spending portion of the bill, which amount to $308 billion, according to the CBO. Of that money, $48 billion goes to the Department of Transportation for various rail and road projects to repair and expand infrastructure. That leaves about $260 billion of discretionary spending that goes to various federal agencies, as well as to state and local governments. How much of that amount helps special interests instead of the economy depends, of course, on what you consider a special interest.

2. Agreement on health care reform remains ellusive even as I post this.
3. There’s still a long road ahead for the legislation on cap and trade. The Senate isn’t expected to take up the issue until fall at the earliest—and the path to passage there will be tougher than passage in the House.

Listen, folks, if you want to bash Obama--go for it. But stop with the lies about where things stand, will ya?

260 billion, if I use that number, is still 1/3 or 33% of the total bill going to Pork projects and not intended to be used directly for the stimulus of the economy

If I use the 308 billion that percentage jumps up to 39%

As a person who is financially smart with my personal money (I owe ZERO in debt and yes I have a home) I find that over 30% of a bill that was meant to use my tax money to help people going to special interests of various politicians unaccepatable


The problem with agreement is that NONE of the republican ideas got into the bill, the democrats are pushing it as an all or nothing deal, and neither side is willing to comprimise with the opposite.

In addition many people have legitimate concerns with having the same govt that can even balance a savings account (social security) or run a health care system (VA hospitals) well, or even understand/read the health bill (Conyers). With those 3 things alone it makes it tough for people with open minds to support the congress' current health care proposal.

The problem with cap and trade is we can see the effects of similar policies in other countries that adopted them several years ago. Austrailia, england, and many european economies are having trouble in part due to their similar policies

You think this is easy distributing the funding allowed and tracking to make sure it goes where it's supposed to? Here is everything you ever wanted to know about the Stimulus Bill and earmarks, and how independent organizations (in addition to Recovery.gov) are allocating it.

Taxpayers for Common Sense

There are a variety of articles in that all-encompassing website that discuss those proposed earmarks contained in the draft Stimulus Bill which were removed, as well as some that never existed in the first place but just made good copy for grandstanding.

I'm not saying that there aren't earmarks in it, but I'm also aware that an earmark often gets a bad rap (just as "bailout" does) when people don't understand exactly what they are. The Taxpayers for Common Sense website is a great one to bookmark because you can click on it on any given day and see something new and probably also something you weren't even aware of.

As far as Republican input, as I recall the only thing they were offering at the time of the stimulus debate was more tax cuts, period. Just like health care, Republicans make a lot of noise but they wind up being all talk and no action. Unfortunately, however, the just-say-no voices are miraculously becoming louder than those who have worked damned hard to explain a highly complex situation.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Thanks for the link Maggie.

I do understand earmarks and bailouts very well. I actually have an education in economics with a BBS from the Isenburg School of Management at Amherst.

My problem is I dont approve of earmarks being put into bills for ANY reason. I think that if an earmark is legitimate then the congress should have to propose the spending for that earmark seperately and debate it. They should NOT be allowed to just stuff pet projects into bills in an effort to garner support from certain members of congress. That, IMO, destroys the intent of the process and destroys the checks and balances on abuses in the spending of our hard earned tax money.

I think you may feel differently about this subject, hence the reason we dont feel the same way about things here.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Hey maggie i see your online, was i right about your opinion of earmarks?

 

[MaggieMae]

Thanks for the link Maggie.

I do understand earmarks and bailouts very well. I actually have an education in economics with a BBS from the Isenburg School of Management at Amherst.

My problem is I dont approve of earmarks being put into bills for ANY reason. I think that if an earmark is legitimate then the congress should have to propose the spending for that earmark seperately and debate it. They should NOT be allowed to just stuff pet projects into bills in an effort to garner support from certain members of congress. That, IMO, destroys the intent of the process and destroys the checks and balances on abuses in the spending of our hard earned tax money.

I think you may feel differently about this subject, hence the reason we dont feel the same way about things here.

The reason they are earmarked is because Congress does not have the time to take up each one individually as a separate bill. And that's no one's fault except historically their own, by making the process so long and drawn out. Rules need to be streamlined for how to get a bill through congress much faster, but I wouldn't know where to begin. Perhaps taking it off national television would be a start. There's far too much grandstanding.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I think thats a great idea.

And I think they actually do have the time. I mean we pay them a LOT of money and give them cushy retirement plans the least they can do is work a 40+ hour week IMO.

They are on vacation next month. They could just work and say go over 2 earmarks a day....that would be 60, wait august...ummm 62 right there .

 

[garyd]

Oh about like Bush treated his opposition for eight years....

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Oh about like Bush treated his opposition for eight years....

Yup obama is being like Bush again with this behavior. I find it very saddening that Obama is continuing this aspect of the Bush legacy.

 

[Oddball]

Thanks for the link Maggie.

I do understand earmarks and bailouts very well. I actually have an education in economics with a BBS from the Isenburg School of Management at Amherst.

My problem is I dont approve of earmarks being put into bills for ANY reason. I think that if an earmark is legitimate then the congress should have to propose the spending for that earmark seperately and debate it. They should NOT be allowed to just stuff pet projects into bills in an effort to garner support from certain members of congress. That, IMO, destroys the intent of the process and destroys the checks and balances on abuses in the spending of our hard earned tax money.

I think you may feel differently about this subject, hence the reason we dont feel the same way about things here.

If you know all this, then you also know that most earmarks are money that would be going to the given district anyways, and are merely a contrivance for congressweasels to get their names put on a park bench.

While a good share of earmarks are indeed wasteful excess that exceed the given budgets, most are just money that would be spent anyways.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Thanks for the link Maggie.

I do understand earmarks and bailouts very well. I actually have an education in economics with a BBS from the Isenburg School of Management at Amherst.

My problem is I dont approve of earmarks being put into bills for ANY reason. I think that if an earmark is legitimate then the congress should have to propose the spending for that earmark seperately and debate it. They should NOT be allowed to just stuff pet projects into bills in an effort to garner support from certain members of congress. That, IMO, destroys the intent of the process and destroys the checks and balances on abuses in the spending of our hard earned tax money.

I think you may feel differently about this subject, hence the reason we dont feel the same way about things here.

If you know all this, then you also know that most earmarks are money that would be going to the given district anyways, and are merely a contrivance for congressweasels to get their names put on a park bench.

While a good share of earmarks are indeed wasteful excess that exceed the given budgets, most are just money that would be spent anyways.

Right but it would be nice if they had to actually justify the spending of that money to the voters...and with earmarks they dont have to do this.

Thats all i'm saying

 

[MaggieMae]

Thanks for the link Maggie.

I do understand earmarks and bailouts very well. I actually have an education in economics with a BBS from the Isenburg School of Management at Amherst.

My problem is I dont approve of earmarks being put into bills for ANY reason. I think that if an earmark is legitimate then the congress should have to propose the spending for that earmark seperately and debate it. They should NOT be allowed to just stuff pet projects into bills in an effort to garner support from certain members of congress. That, IMO, destroys the intent of the process and destroys the checks and balances on abuses in the spending of our hard earned tax money.

I think you may feel differently about this subject, hence the reason we dont feel the same way about things here.

If you know all this, then you also know that most earmarks are money that would be going to the given district anyways, and are merely a contrivance for congressweasels to get their names put on a park bench.

While a good share of earmarks are indeed wasteful excess that exceed the given budgets, most are just money that would be spent anyways.

Right but it would be nice if they had to actually justify the spending of that money to the voters...and with earmarks they dont have to do this.

Thats all i'm saying

I think they do now. There is a new rule each earmark be identified in the bill with the name of the member requesting it and that the request letters identifying the recipient be made public as well. I think you could probably find more information on that aspect from the Taxpayers for Common Sense website I posted previously.

 

[garyd]

You probably could but almost no one goes and looks. The chief purpose of earmarks is to buy votes back home.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

But the still dont have to debate the merits of the earmark. Yes its easier to find who it was that put the earmark in the bills but they can still ram em in there with no debate.

 

[garyd]

And do so with frequency...

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

And do so with frequency...

Which totally makes me agitated toward the govt.