Obama Administration Fails Its Own Transparency Promise Just Days Later

from the is-it-that-difficult? dept

Fri, Jan 30th 2009 7:12am — Mike Masnick

While some of the complaining in the press about President Obama's lack of transparency is overblown, you would think that the new administration could at least live up to the rather simple promises it made days ago on transparency. On inauguration day, the administration promised, among other things:

We will publish all non-emergency legislation to the website for five days, and allow the public to review and comment before the President signs it.

That's great! If only it actually happened. Jim Harper points out that Obama signed the "Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009" into law just a day after Congress sent it to him. This is a "non-emergency" law. The Whitehouse did put it on the website for review, but not for five days. And, it's especially troubling since there actually is a fair amount of controversy over the law. No matter whether you support it or not, the administration made a great promise that we support: putting it up on the website for five days to allow public review and comment, before the President signs it. And they didn't live up to that.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: obama, transparency

158 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

:Lobo Santo, 30 Jan 2009 @ 7:16am

Quick!
Name one president who delivered on all his campaign promises...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Future Boy, 30 Jan 2009 @ 7:20am
  
  Re: Quick!
  Hillary Clinton, President from 2017 - 2025
  "The most uncompromising wartime president in our nations' history."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- J, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:56am
  
  Re: Quick!
  Which one promised to SAVE THE WORLD??
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Steph, 17 Feb 2009 @ 9:52am
  
  Re: Quick!
  Name one president that has backed down on so many promises within the first 100 days....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lihlez, 21 Apr 2009 @ 5:49am
  
  Re: Quick!
  Well what you just stated is an true and rigid comment but The problem is many people beleived in Obama to really process change and a better future but once again he just no different he makes promises filled with emptyness and that really elipse the faith of citizens
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lihlez, 21 Apr 2009 @ 5:49am
  
  Re: Quick!
  Well what you just stated is an true and rigid comment but The problem is many people beleived in Obama to really process change and a better future but once again he just no different he makes promises filled with emptyness and that really elipse the faith of citizens
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jim Bob, 28 Jul 2009 @ 8:17am
  
  Re: Quick!
  Yeah that's right, it fits right in with the other promises made... What happened to "CHANGE?" What happened to this new integrity? And now, he breaks a promise before the sun goes down on the echo of his promise and all you liberals can say is. . ."every one else does it!" NICE! But you're wrong, he's not only worse, he's criminally repugnant. All we can do is hope his racist, anti-God, satanic Islamic rear-end gets thrown out asap before this nation is destroyed completely! And by the way, its not Barrack Hussein Obama, It's Barry Soetoro since he refuses to show us proof that he changed his name, his birth certificate, his collage transcripts, or anything else that would prove he is an American. And NO, the documents his criminally corrupt "Fact check" posted are NOT legal docs. But what do you care right? He's just like everyone else!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 7:27am

New boss, old boss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 7:44am

This law addresses a unique situation brought about by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision during the court's last term. I can understand the desire to sign it as quickly as possible given that failure to do so may have left employees "holding the bag". In a limited number or instances days really do matter, and this is likely such an instance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 7:51am

Leave him alone!! It's hard work being the president! It's a time of crisis, and you should support him, not tear at him!
Hell, if it worked for BushCo, it should work here, dammit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- eleete, 30 Jan 2009 @ 7:57am
  
  Re:
  Not only the transparency issue, but how about the three lobbyists he has in his administration that he swore wouldn't be there.
  
  I really don't care how hard the job is. He CHOSE to run for president. Then laid out plans and promises for his administration. Now comes the truth. He is not what he said he was, nor what his supporters believed he was. Now, like Bush, we are stuck with him for at least 4 years. I suppose some may just Love his stimulus (porkulus) bill, don't count me as as one of 'em though.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:03am
  
  Re:
  Yeah, we should support him, even though in his first week he broke most of his "promises" made to the public. It's a time of crisis, so let's just let him do whatever the hell he wants!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ChasW, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Yeah, we should support him, even though in his first week he broke most of his "promises" made to the public. It's a time of crisis, so let's just let him do whatever the hell he wants!"
    
    Actually, this is the first broken promise. Check out:
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/
    
    There are hundreds of promises. How is he going to break half of them in a week?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 9:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      By opening his mouth. He /is/ a politician.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Skedaddler, 30 Jan 2009 @ 9:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How insightful.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Doe, 30 Jan 2009 @ 10:03am
  
  Re:
  Did you support Bush? Somehow I doubt it. It is funny how Obama says we should party politics aside and pass his agenda. Yet his agenda is party politics. Maybe he should compromise his position instead of expecting everyone to compromise for him. After all, a compromise should mean both sides give up something.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Skedaddler, 30 Jan 2009 @ 10:07am
    
    Re: Re:
    He gave up the family planning points of the stimulus package. What did the Republicans in the house give? Not a single vote. What's your point, aside from invalid?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - BTR1701, 30 Jan 2009 @ 3:31pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Stimulus
      What I don't get is why Obama is so desperate for Republican support on
      this "stimulus"** bill. The Democrats have the votes. They could pass it
      today if they wanted to. They don't need even one Republican to sign on.
      
      And if it's really the solution that Obama says it is, then he should be
      happy to let the Democrats take all the credit for it. But the reality
      is that he knows this bill is nothing but a big-government spending
      spree which will do nothing to actually help things and he needs
      Republican support because he wants to use them as cover when the whole
      thing goes tits-up. He wants to be able to say, "It wasn't just the
      Democrats! All of Washington supported this thing. It was bi-partisan!"
      
      The last thing he wants is for Republicans to be able to put up campaign
      ads two years from now saying "Look what the Democrats did to you."
      
      **Which really is no such thing. It's just a standard budget bill,
      increased by about 30% and loaded with pork, most of which will do
      nothing to stimulate the economy.
      
      If they really wanted to stimulate the economy, they could just suspend
      the income tax for six months. That puts money in people's pockets
      immediately and would do more to stimulate the economy in the short term
      than this disgusting money grab... err, "stimulus" bill, ever will.
      
      But of course they won't do that, because suspending the income tax
      doesn't redistribute any wealth from the people who shouldn't have it
      (according to the government) to the people who should have it
      (according to the government). And it also wouldn't be "fair" to the
      people who already don't pay any taxes. We certainly can't have everyone
      else getting a windfall and leave out the folks who are already living
      off everyone else's largesse.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - dionusos, 18 Feb 2009 @ 9:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      He (and the other Democrats) loaded up the stimulus bill with a ton of Democrat agenda items, and zero Republican agenda items. Then the Democrats give up a small handful of their Democrat agenda items, and add in zero Republican agenda items. In the end, there's still a huge load of Democrat agenda items and zero Republican agenda items. That's not compromise, that's political posturing meant to LOOK like compromise.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anon, 30 Nov 2010 @ 12:55pm
  
  Re:
  People voted for him because he ran not only as a democrat, but on a basically all anti-bush campaign saying in my ear a bunch of horse manure he knew he couldn't deliver in the first place, but sounded nice to desperate minorities who saw him as their ticket into a government dominated by "the white man".
  The irony is that hes acting just like Bush and Clinton before him. To none of my suprise.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 7:58am

All statements by Barack Obama come with an expiration date. All of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 7:59am

Obama haters! He has done more good in his first week then any president in my 38 years. He a man first and president second. Noone is perfect, but hes close enough for me ..... so far
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:02am
  
  Re: More Good
  Yep he saved the cheerleader...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:05am
  
  Re:
  "he's a man first and a president second"...That's what Bill said too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- interval, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:33am
  
  Re:
  "He has done more good in his first week then any president in my 38 years."
  
  What th'... ??? HE'S DONE NOTHING! He has done NOTHING yet! He's been in office ONE WEEK! WHat has he done? Name it!!!! Name this great good that he's done!!! You're INSANE!!! INSANE!
  
  I'll give you that he's galvanized the Left to an extreme, fanatical degree, but then we all expected that. Seriously, that is about it. Look, I'm not against the guy, but for crying out loud, such statements really need back-up. Otherwise your painting yourself with the fanaticism label.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Skedaddler, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    Galvanized the left? The extreme left is not happy at all with him. Where have you been? Are you paying attention at all? He gave up the family planning part of his package to appease Republicans who CANNOT EVEN STOP HIM! Why? To bring gov back to a center. To avoid falling prey to the nonsense that is going on right here in this thread. I give him MUCH credit for that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - interval, 30 Jan 2009 @ 10:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Where have you been??? I've heard nothing but he's christ-like, he's going to fix everything, and yadda yadda since before the swear-in. You've got to be kidding me. Or you live in a red state. Here in California its all about Obama is the future. Loud and Clear.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Xiera, 30 Jan 2009 @ 11:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, the left has been pretty pissed about Obama's relative centrism so far. He's still pretty far left, especially fiscally, but not nearly as much as Democrat leaders would like.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - dionusos, 18 Feb 2009 @ 9:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You need to do your homework. He needed those 3 Republicans in the Senate. And giving up the "family planning package" while keeping tons of other Democrat agenda items is not really anything to applaud. It's easy to just give up an agenda item after you load the bill with a ton of them in the first place. Anyone can just add some agenda items in order to remove them later to look bipartisan.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Phillip Vector (profile), 30 Jan 2009 @ 10:51am
    
    Re: Re:
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing_room/executive_orders/
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:54am
  
  Re:
  ^--- *drinks cool-aide*
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Skedaddler, 30 Jan 2009 @ 9:02am
    
    Re: Re:
    ^^ has no valid argument therefore must resort to the cool-aid comments to pretend he has a point
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 9:24am
  
  Re:
  More in his first week? Like what give free money away like 900 billion?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TX CHL Instructor (profile), 30 Jan 2009 @ 10:45am
  
  Re: Obama Haters!
  Good for whom? Himself, certainly; he now lives in luxury. Turning down thermostats is for Other People. He gets to throw lavish parties (wagyu steak, anyone?) over passage of the largest, most blatant pork-ridden boondoggle (payback for political favors, anyone?) in history. He decided that it's really ok to hire lobbyists, after all. This is just a follow-on to his "promise" to follow public election finance rules.
  
  Where is the outrage? If this had been a Republican doing all of this, the NYT, along with most other MSM newspapers, would be featuring the outrage on the front page, non-stop, with Libs screaming like wounded beagles. But no, if you say anything at all negative about the Obamassiah, you get thrown off the plane (Dallas Morning News, anyone?).
  
  The Chicago Politician with the Blank Resume (can't stay blank now, can it BHO?) *has* helped my business tremendously. For at least a short time.
  ---
  www.chl-tx.com Makin' hay while the sun shines, because the Libs are about to make it set for a long time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 1:26pm
  
  Re:
  You are an idiot. More in his first week.... Good fucking God. We are doomed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Stef, 17 Feb 2009 @ 9:54am
  
  Re:
  and a liar third
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
hegemon13, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:00am

All talk, no action
So far, Obama is looking just like yet another run-of-the-mill politician. All talk, no action. He promises bipartisanship and even meets with the Republicans for show, supposedly to "listen" to their ideas. Instead, he implements nothing they suggest (except removing one tiny, pork-barrel item), and submits the bill to Congress as-is.

He promises transparency, and we get this, just days later.

Sorry, but he's no political savior. It's business as usual in Washington.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- eleete, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:07am
  
  Re: All talk, no action
  Typical hegemon13, logical and concise.
  Well said.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - interval, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:38am
    
    Re: Re: All talk, no action
    After it seemed obvious that he was winning during the race, the leftists among my (sic) "posse" were of course over-joyed; "Now we'll have real change!!" and all the other catch phrases. And I replied "Nothing will change, not a damn thing." and of course I was right. As long as we keep picking clowns from the same two pools its going to be business as usual. I'm continually fascinated by the apparent non-existence of any other viable party in the American political system.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Your Gawd and Master, 30 Jan 2009 @ 9:06am
      
      same two pools
      Say you bought a Ford and it runs alright when you first get it but before long it starts giving you trouble, breaks down a lot and has all sorts of problems that just annoy you to death. So you eventually trade it in and get yourself a Chevy. The Chevy drives alright at first but before long it starts giving you trouble breaking down, rusting, etc. and eventually you get tired of it and want another car.
      
      YOU DO NOT GO OUT AND BUY ANOTHER FORD!!!
      
      /Anarchy - It's not the law, it's just a good idea.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Skedaddler, 30 Jan 2009 @ 9:18am
        
        Re: same two pools
        Anarchy is a waste of time. To use your own example, it's like saying that because Ford and Chevy suck, we should abandon all lessons learned and start over by chiseling wheels out of stone.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        interval, 30 Jan 2009 @ 10:38am
        
        Re: Re: same two pools
        NO; to use YOUR example, you go out and get a GM. Or maybe a Toyota. But you buy ANOTHER BRAND.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased), 30 Jan 2009 @ 12:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: same two pools
        All vehicles will breakdown eventually. Some faster than others. So you find a brand that lasts longer then stick with that one until the quality is poorer than the other brands and switch.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 1:30pm
        
        Re: Re: same two pools
        Not what he's saying. He's saying if Ford and Chevy suck, get a Honda.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2009 @ 8:43am
    
    Re: Re: All talk, no action
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 9:12am
  
  Re: All talk, no action
  So he should listen to the Republicans and implement all their ideas? Wouldn't that kinda of defeat the purpose of running AGAINST the Republicans? Typical Republican attituce though, you expect control even when you lose!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 9:40am
  
  Re: All talk, no action
  What, its been a week and you're already throwing him under the bus? The new guy is dealing with old dogs and we all know what old dogs are like.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DCX2, 30 Jan 2009 @ 11:07am
  
  Re: All talk, no action
  I guess all those "business tax cuts" weren't the Republicans idea? Or do silly little things like facts get in the way of your partisan hackery?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- healthtrax, 10 Feb 2009 @ 6:29pm
  
  Re: All talk, no action
  WOW brother, you'll fall for just about everything if you beleive that Obama is actually going to help you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark K (profile), 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:05am

Direction Needed
How is one supposed to find these laws that are up for public review?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:06am

This wasn't a campaign promise, this was after he was elected.

The promise should be kept. We aren't asking for perfection, just integrity (I know it is a lot to ask for, but I think it should come with the job).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- eleete, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:10am
  
  Re:
  In my opinion...
  Integrity = Ron Paul
  Obama = False Promises
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - interval, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    @eleete: In my opinion...
    
    I'll do you one better, Ron Paul = real change. Anyone else = The Same Old Shit.
    
    I wrote him in this one. I wished he'd have kept up the fight rather than bow out of this last one, and keep fighting until we at least get a third party in. I'd settle for that at this point.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ToySouljah, 30 Jan 2009 @ 5:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yes, I was rather upset when during the debates they would not even show Ron Paul's numbers along with the other candidates until a lot of people starting calling to complain. Last time I saw he was leading during the debates, but somehow got swept under the rug by the GOP. It's funny, but there are still "Vote for Ron Paul" signs around. He would have been an excellent president since he would have taken the oath to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution seriously.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - dionusos, 18 Feb 2009 @ 8:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    YES. Amen.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dionusos, 18 Feb 2009 @ 12:46pm
  
  Re:
  Actually, it IS a campaign promise.
  
  Via Barack Obama's OWN WEBSITE... On June 22, 2007, in Manchester, New Hampshire, he said:
  
  "When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as President, you will have five days to look online and find out what's in it before I sign it."
  
  http://www.barackobama.com/2007/06/22/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_17.php
  
  This means ALL bills. Only later did he re-make that promise in the form of "non-emergency" bills in order to alter his own promise and lower the standards on himself.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greg, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:07am

Obama.. ha!
What do you expect? He's a liberal Demo(c)rat and he's from the state of Blagojevich. Just like Clinton when he promised tax cuts but came back later saying "I've never worked harder in my life. I tried.. but I can't do it." as he proceded to raise taxes. Of course, there was never an intention of lowering taxes. And now, we see how Obama is going to be (which most of us that look at actions over words already knew.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
compmanio36, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:10am

WOW, I hate to say, "I told you so", but, "I TOLD YOU SO!!!!" F Obama and his cronies, just another democratic presidency we'll have to deal with for another 4 years. Good job America, voted in another LUSER!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Skedaddler, 30 Jan 2009 @ 9:19am
  
  Re:
  After 8 years of Bush I think you need to STFU.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - eleete, 30 Jan 2009 @ 9:25am
    
    Re: Re:
    Is that your suggestion on Free Speech in a public forum ?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Skedaddler, 30 Jan 2009 @ 9:53am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      C'mon now. I personally don't think that telling a troller to STFU really counts as limiting free speech. It's really more an idiom to state "your argument has no value because it's just a post intended to flame."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Justin, 30 Jan 2009 @ 11:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'd say blaming everything on Bush is flamebait. Blaming everything on the gov't on the other hand isn't. But to blame anyone guy... even if it's a douche ... is crazy and is clearly a lack of understanding on how the system actually works.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - dionusos, 18 Feb 2009 @ 9:36am
    
    Re: Re:
    So what would your response to be if someone who hates Bush also said the exact same thing? Keep in mind that the guy you responded to said "another LUSER!" Note the word ANOTHER. That seems to indicate he thought Bush was a "luser" too. So what is your response now?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 1:37pm
  
  Re:
  Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Republican or Democrat, doesn't matter.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:11am

people can be so blind when they dont want to see ....

Equal rights to woman law
Stem cell research
slamming wall street for their BS spending

Nah, I agree that he is as many others in many ways.
He is my President! Many are thinking he is some kind of saint, going to make change in America etc. Well, What have you done for your country lately. People have to change their one sided, greedy, selfish, egotistical way and become one of the PEOPLE that are helping America! Sad really, cause I know there are so many that are so blind they will never see anything they don't want to.

For the people, BY THE PEOPLE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- interval, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:49am
  
  Re:
  "For the people, BY THE PEOPLE."
  
  What? Huh??? What's this? Are you talking about the United States? Don't make me laugh. The last administration waved their magic pens and gave a bunch of Wall Street losers (or winners, if we will consider for a moment that you are a winner if you swindle millions of people and get away with it) a huge wad of our dough. This went through congress without any kind of referendum or any kind of voice from we, "the People", AT ALL! The only time that is supposed to happen is during a war. The last time we declared war was in WWII. Since then its been Rule by Decree, and even until now. The first promise Obama breaks is one thing, but now watch and see if he (with the help of the thugs warming the seats in congress, the president's henchmen now with the Democratic majority) also creates law by decree. The first time that happens we'll all now the truth. And follow the money...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kaleo, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:13am

For REAL political change...
re-elect no one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Skedaddler, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:34am
  
  Re: For REAL political change...
  What does this even mean?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Kilgore Trout, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:42am
    
    Re: Re: For REAL political change...
    It means vote out all the people that are currently in office - a massive political bloodletting, replacing the entire legislative branch of the government in one fell swoop.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re: For REAL political change...
      I thought you meant... Once a politician is in office, they cannot get re-elected. So one term only. That way they concentrate on the job, not re-election.
      
      Sounds pretty good to me!
      
      And if you think that's stupid because they won't be in office long enough to get anything done (arguably a good thing) look at how much time they waste preparing for election. Hell Obama has been running for 3 or 4 years now.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Skedaddler, 30 Jan 2009 @ 9:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re: For REAL political change...
      My mistake. I misread that to say "elect no one." Seemed a very silly statement. Unfortunately, far fetched and not at all practical.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Justin, 30 Jan 2009 @ 10:48am
  
  Re: For REAL political change...
  Kaleo is correct.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pokerbear, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:16am

Re: This is an admission
An admission that maybe all the idealism is harder to live up to than he thought...great rhetoric though. This is why past presidents traditionally don't critisize new presidents (with the exception of Clinton, who has no ethics anyway), because they understand the difficulty of the job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Skedaddler, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:18am

All arguments listed above fail.
You people are silly. For or against Obama, your arguments are full of appeals to emotion or guilt by association. Any rational person knows that there has not been enough time to make a judgement call. If you find yourself staunchly in either camp, then you are part of the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:20am
  
  Re: All arguments listed above fail.
  Exactly, so why do people insist on "obama is considered one of the great american president's", I've heard this on several cable news stations, and cities were naming streets and schools after him before he even took office.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Skedaddler, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:26am
    
    Re: Re: All arguments listed above fail.
    Partly history. Being the first black president will get you street signs. Great American president though? It's been a week! How will any of us know until see whether or not his ideas work? And anyone who criticizes Obama in his first week, who has ever supported Bush's argument that only history will know if Bush was a good president, is just a hypocrite and is not worth the energy to argue with.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:45am
      
      Re: Re: Re: All arguments listed above fail.
      So I wonder if all those street signs will get changed back if Obama turns out to be another Jimmy Carter, which at this point he's on the road to becoming. He's passed more executive orders in 5 days than any president in history, his first television interview was for a foreign news network, he touts bipartisanship but takes no advice to heart and makes no changes to his proposed legislation, when a reporter asks him about his cabinet appointees being lobbyists (which he promised not to do) he basically chews out the reporter and then changes the subject. I hope for the country's sake that I'm wrong, but he's not off to a good start.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 9:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: All arguments listed above fail.
        "passed more executive orders in 5 days than any president in history"
        
        citation needed
        
        "he touts bipartisanship but takes no advice to heart and makes no changes to his proposed legislation"
        
        he did not completely fold if that's what you mean. he did make changes that he did not even need to make to get the stimulus passed because of Republican interests, so I call this point untrue.
        
        "when a reporter asks him about his cabinet appointees being lobbyists (which he promised not to do) he basically chews out the reporter and then changes the subject"
        
        citations please
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 9:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All arguments listed above fail.
        "passed more executive orders in 5 days than any president in history"
        
        http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/obama-signs-five-executive-orders-in-first-three -days/
        
        "when a reporter asks him about his cabinet appointees being lobbyists (which he promised not to do) he basically chews out the reporter and then changes the subject"
        
        http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17831.html
        
        Got these in about 30 seconds of Googling. You should try it sometime.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 11:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All arguments listed above fail.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Patrick, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:21am
  
  Re: All arguments listed above fail.
  KUDOS!
  
  peace
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- eleete, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:26am
  
  Re: All arguments listed above fail.
  I can think of 825 billion reasons. Interesting side note. If you had a stack of $1000 bills, and 4 inches of those bills made $1,000,000. How high would the stack be to reach $1 Trillion ?
  Answer 63 MILES high.
  
  To call that bill a 'stimulus' plan, is pure BS. (Hell Yeah I'm emotional about it). More to come over the next four years. All those Bush haters are gonna love defending this guy 24-7. Three lobbyists in his administration (as you pointed out) so early in office. Broken Promises so soon.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Skedaddler, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:33am
    
    Re: Re: All arguments listed above fail.
    This is the nonsense I am talking about. Appeal to emotion does not make a valid argument.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Xiera, 30 Jan 2009 @ 11:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re: All arguments listed above fail.
      That's not an appeal to emotion, that's cold, hard fact. One trillion dollars does not seem like a lot until you think about it differently. Most Americans would LOVE to win one million dollars. One trillion? That's a million millions. There's no emotion to it -- just fact.
      
      Three lobbyists in his administration? Just fact.
      
      Broken promises? Fact.
      
      I know you're just arguing that he should be given time to prove himself, and that's fine. In fact, I agree. But many the arguments being made are based in indisputable fact. What you make of the facts is subjective, but the facts themselves are objective.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 1:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: All arguments listed above fail.
      But a broken promise is not an emotional point. 5 days before he signs a bill. That was his word.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:24am

Can't judge until hes been there awhile, being from Illinois, There is still a chance he is one of the 'good guys, but then, I kinda liked Bush when we were going to avenge 9/11, now we all know what a betrayal that was!

Time will tell, if we don't kill each other.

>^..^
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jonnyq, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:25am

Considering that the president only has 10 days to sign or veto a bill, sitting on it for 5 days while it's reviewed seems like a little much.

Surely there are better ways to be transparent and get feedback from concerned people than to just sit on something for 5 days.

Not an Obama fan at all, but it sounds like a silly promise to make. Especially when there are websites out there already that detail every piece of legislation and allow for feedback. Maybe the better, more "transparent" thing to do would be for Obama to support services like that - publish things even before they're voted on, and allow feedback for a few days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scared, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:32am

Hide your assets
We're screwed '08
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:33am

give the money to the people to pay off debts!

People free of 'some debt. Companies get money!

Win, Win!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Skedaddler, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:38am

Obama's argument for the parts of his plan that are not immediate stimulus are to support growth long term. I don't know if they will work, neither do you. No-one does! You make a plan that you think is the best based on the info you have and you execute the plan. If you don't agree, then state your reasons. Don't just name-call and fear-monger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- CastorTroy-Libertarian, 30 Jan 2009 @ 9:05am
  
  Re:
  actually we do know, the same things they are trying where tried in the great depression of the 20's, and they failed then, they will fail now and (just like the 20's) extend the depression by years...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Skedaddler, 30 Jan 2009 @ 9:14am
    
    Re: Re:
    There are so many factors that have changed though. Stockpiling and warehousing are comparatively non-existant now with the advent of computer technology and order-on-demand systems. Global economics is no-where near the same animal today as it was in the 30's. History teaches lessons, sure, but time has changed many of the dynamics that make your arguement.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - CastorTroy-Libertarian, 30 Jan 2009 @ 9:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      While I will agree to the first portion of your arguement the fundamentals and premise are the same, people are afraid, people do not trust the banks, Governements, or Companies, and are not spending money.. that doesnt change nor do the global effects..
      
      Ill even give that small changes in both cause and effect will happen through out the crisis and will cause minor different outcomes; but the over all picture and outcome will not change, therefore that makes the arguement to change the response to this disaster... not just doing the same and saying "We'll do it better" that has never worked, and it wont work now...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Skedaddler, 30 Jan 2009 @ 9:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I respect the points you are making. This is outside of my area of expertise and I must rely on information I get from outside sources. Being that there are so many opposing viewpoints, I find it difficult to have strong feelings about it, due to my own ignorance of the finer points of this subject. So far, though, I accept the strategy that is being laid out by this administration. It, on its face, makes sense to me, so I am willing to go with it. I do remain open minded about it, but unfortunately I don't feel like I will know if my gut was right or wrong until it is too late.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Xiera, 30 Jan 2009 @ 11:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, on the surface it looks good. Hell, I even agree with what Obama's spending money on (for the most part). If the government must spend money, why should it not be on infrastructure and improving the lives of all Americans? It should be.
        
        Unfortunately, though the bill will probably create jobs, I'm not sure I see much *permanent* job growth. Most of the new jobs will be temporary and will disappear again when the projects have completed. That is, unless the government spends more money.
        
        The centerpiece of our economy, like it or not, is its businesses. They'll be the ones that can create permanent jobs and spend their money (not taxpayer money) in positive ways that will grow the economy. I think Obama mentioned alleviating the credit freeze and this will help, but he really has to cut the business tax -- Mitt Romney and Meg Whitman individually suggested 25%, which sounds reasonable to me. Oh! And, Obama, please close those loopholes you were talking about too!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Another AC, 30 Jan 2009 @ 11:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Trickledown economics has not been working. The businesses are keeping the money and blowing it on Jets, Bonuses, Parties, etc. All the while we are losing Jobs people who had those jobs are losing their houses and retirement (not just those who bought irresposibly) and we should decrease their taxes? It does not make sense to me. If they are to get tax cuts, it should be based on what they are doing right (ie, providing health insurance, keeping jobs in the US, using more efficent or greener technologies etc.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Xiera, 30 Jan 2009 @ 11:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So why not change the way accounting works? Don't count jets, executives' bonuses, parties, etc., as expenses because they are above-and-beyond expenditures that do not go towards day-to-day business operations.
        
        The idea is that businesses spend money more than consumers do. So I agree with you, provide them with incentives to spend money in a "good" way (job creation, research, innovation, etc.).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:45am

whatever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:45am

Did you honestly think that Obama has been feeding us the truth instead of lies throughout his whole campaign? He promised you all ice cream, and like a bunch of 5 year olds, you all took it gladly, not giving any thought to what he might be planning to do after he won your votes and got elected. He now has all the power, power that we 5-year-old Americans gave him. I hope you're prepared to accept the consequences of your actions, because they aren't going to be pretty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Skedaddler, 30 Jan 2009 @ 8:52am
  
  Re:
  Wuh? Explain. Give me a failed promise as an example.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 9:13am
    
    Re: Re:
    Here's one: Transparency...Exactly what this article is talking about. Last week a reporter asked him about picking a lobbyist as a cabinet member, which is another broken promise, and Obama glared (watch the video, he gave him a dirty look) at him and said "I came down here to say hi to you, I'm not answering any questions about that". Yeah, way to be transparent.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Skedaddler, 30 Jan 2009 @ 9:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      A CAMPAIGN promise, as you declared in your original obtuse statement. You are using this single example as the argument to state that he has been lying to us and we are 5-year olds for believing anything the bad man said. Give me an example of a campaign promise that has been broken.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 9:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He's been touting "transparency" for the last year, are you kidding me that it wasn't a CAMPAIGN statement? He was talking about it back in the primaries. Now, give another excuse for him...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Skedaddler, 30 Jan 2009 @ 10:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ok, I'm going to retreat on this one and give you the point because this is in fact an example of making a promise that he has not followed through with. You do agree though, that this specific promise was made only a few days ago. Right? And will you agree that, despite having failed to hold true to this promise on the specific law in this example, that there is still time for him to reconcile this promise long term? And if he does, and the non-emergency laws to follow are indeed available to comment on online, will you then agree that this is much more transparent the the previous administration and therefore posistive progress?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 10:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I agree that this specific promise was only made a few days ago, and I'll give him credit that putting anything up this fast is amazing for the government. I hope everything he does happens this fast, and the last administration did an abysmal job at letting the people see what's going on behind the scenes (just try and find where the $350B went, it's impossible). However, I'm not holding my breath waiting for him to come through on any of his promises. To me it looks like it's gonna be just another ride on the political merry-go-round and we'll be right back where we were 8 years ago.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Xiera, 30 Jan 2009 @ 11:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Here's another one: campaign finance reform. He specifically agreed, during the primaries, that if he was nominated for the Democratic ticket, he would accept public financing for his campaign. Obviously, he rescinded on this promise (and it's part of the reason he won).
        
        That said, there are many things that he promised that he has delivered on -- some of them I like (seeking peace with middle eastern countries) and others I don't (the stimulus bill).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - dionusos, 18 Feb 2009 @ 12:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How about THIS campaign promise?
        
        Via Barack Obama's OWN WEBSITE... On June 22, 2007, in Manchester, New Hampshire, he said:
        
        "When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as President, you will have five days to look online and find out what's in it before I sign it."
        
        http://www.barackobama.com/2007/06/22/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_17.php
        
        This means ALL bills. Only later did he re-make that promise in the form of "non-emergency" bills in order to alter his own promise and lower the standards on himself.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 9:12am

So many people are so bitter that the old man didn't win
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matt, 30 Jan 2009 @ 9:13am

Tech? Dirt?
First, this article has nothing to do with Tech, or Dirt, so I'm failing to see why it is on this site.

That notwithstanding, do you think that perhaps a new president is more concerned with hurrying up and signing a bunch of things right away to make an impact 'out of the gate' than he is with entertaining 5 days of commentary everytime?

I imagine after he has been in office for a month, that things could be different. Then again, maybe not. Look, I was and will continue to be an Obama supporter, but anyone who thought he was going to honor every single thing he said during his campaign was dreaming. He is still a politician. But, I feel much better about his integrity than I have about any previous elected official.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Skedaddler, 30 Jan 2009 @ 9:26am
  
  Re: Tech? Dirt?
  Tech because he claimed he would put up an online polling device for getting a sense of the people's feelings towards non-emergency laws he would sign. Dirt because he didn't get it done before a law he signed. Therefore, according to some, he is a no-good liar who has been feeding us BS from the day he decided to run for office.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 30 Jan 2009 @ 9:32am

I told you so...
Ok, I didn't really tell you before hand, but you had to be an idiot to think Obama was going to bring change. The only change he brought was Dems instead of Reps and that is no change at all. We are a divided people and the two parties have conquered us. They both use FUD to control us, they just use different issues to create the FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Skedaddler, 30 Jan 2009 @ 9:36am
  
  Re: I told you so...
  Way to troll
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Libertarian, 30 Jan 2009 @ 9:32am

I read the comment;

"Give the money to the people to pay off debts!

People free of 'some debt. Companies get money!

Win, Win!"

I about fell out of my chair.....

Are you kidding me.

Let's break that down for a moment:
"Give the money to the people to pay off debts" - Didn't those same people get themselves into debt in the first place. I don't want to hear crap about predatory lending. If you not intelligent enought to figure out the details, then you should be trying to keep up with the Jones'. Those are my tax dollars being used to pay off someone's lack of self-control. What's happening to our country?

I don't want/need a government handout. If I want something and I don't have the money for it, I do it the old fashioned way, I save what I've earned to purchase it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Skedaddler, 30 Jan 2009 @ 9:42am
  
  Re:
  I think you are conflating the steps that are being taken now to stabilize the economy with the cause/effect of the mortgage collapse. I won't argue the predatory lending vs. borrowers, because I think there is plenty of blame to go around there, but also because I think the cause of the economic collapse is not necessarily relevent to what needs to be done to slow down its downward trend. Putting money into the hands of people who will spend it is better than putting it into the hands of people who will save it, if your goal is to get money circulating again. I'm not an economist, so I don't know if it is true, but that is the argument for taking these steps.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Xiera, 30 Jan 2009 @ 11:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    I agree with your argument ("putting money into the hands of people who will spend it is better than putting it into the hands of people who will save it") to a degree.
    
    My one disagreement is that "putting money into [anyone's] hands" is a bad thing. It's a fundamental problem with the way this country works. Why work for money if the government is just going to put it into your hands?
    
    I *do* agree that it is better for people to spend money rather than save it. That said, some people are natural spenders and others are natural savers, and it would be unfair to distinguish between the two groups. Fortunately, there's another way -- businesses are natural spenders. They have to spend money in order to make money.
    
    Putting the two together, tax cuts for businesses are a good way to get money flowing again without simply "handing the money out".
    
    Though I'm normally in favor of letting businesses do their own thing, perhaps there is some merit to regulations regarding compensation for high-level positions, in light of the abuses we've seen recently. (Granted the abuses are probably the minority, but if the majority are playing by the rules, any regulation should not harm them.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ToySouljah, 30 Jan 2009 @ 6:16pm
  
  Re:
  lmao...and it really is that simple. Hell, my mother taught me that growing up, and still works for me today. I see people spending way more than they earn and looking down at me for "living within my means", but at least I can say that "I own everything I have" and not the bank or some credit company...lol. My next big purchase will be a house, but I am still saving up for that. It sucks right now since after splitting with my ex I am living back at my mothers house, but during times like this it has actually helped since I help her with her bills and I am able to still save more money to purchase my own house later on down the road.
  
  The government needs to take a lesson from my mother that may help them differentiate between "wants" and "needs" in spending. Just because you are given a certain amount of money (my case it's my paycheck) to spend does not really mean you have to spend every single penny. Save some up for an emergency or "down period" that you can fall back on. This would help the government learn how to truly "trim the fat" from their budgets.
  
  Maybe it is true...once you reach a certain amount of intelligence that the brain needs to purge unnecessary info, but unfortunately it is common sense that is the first to go.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tomk, 30 Jan 2009 @ 9:43am

Oh no, the Obamatrons are out to make sure that no one speaks unkindly of the POLITICIAN that they worship so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Skedaddler, 30 Jan 2009 @ 9:56am
  
  Re:
  As someone who is open to arguments on both sides, and has no fixed opinon until the facts are in, I have to ask, is this the best that conservatives have to offer in the way of a good argument? Trolls and flames? Are there any conservative republicans out there who can actually argue over facts? You know, posit an argument? Have premises that support a conclusion? Any? Because these are the people that I want to argue with. Not this nonsense.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Xiera, 30 Jan 2009 @ 11:49am
    
    Re: Re:
    I consider myself a fiscal conservative (not a republican). I'm an independent and think I do a decent job of presenting non-partisan arguments. ^_^
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - dionusos, 18 Feb 2009 @ 10:14am
    
    Re: Re:
    Sorry but you are not open to arguments on both sides. You've been an Obama cheerleader this whole time. You yourself trolled by bringing up Bush in response to a post about Obama.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
mslade, 30 Jan 2009 @ 9:44am

Perhaps consider it from this perspective.
Obama promised 5 days and didn't give it to us. What did the last administration give us? The one before it? Before that? Etc. I'm not saying he's "off the hook" but I remain confident that his intentions are true and in the right place.

Consider it from this perspective: look how quickly things have come about in just over a week that he has been president. Practically speaking, publishing legislation to a website is easy enough to do. But anyone who has ever worked in a large company (analogous to the corporation of the US) knows that when you get web developers, lawyers, and marketing stooges in the same room together, this kind of change normally takes months.

Publishing all legislation to the public for 5 days is a huge change in workflow for our titanic government steeped in tradition. That we've even started doing this in just over a week is, in my opinion, impressive and not to be overlooked lightly.

I'm disappointed, but will not join the "Yarrr! His words mean nothing! I don't want to be a fanatic so hating him is the only other option because we live in a world of extremes!" bandwagon. =)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jason, 30 Jan 2009 @ 9:45am

I'm not surprised. Obama is a one trick pony and hasn't done anything yet. I don't even visit cnn and msnbc anymore....cnn posts pictures of the man working at his desk. endless pictures of him at his desk and theres only 1 piece of paper on it.

On a related note...Obama will continue to not live up to anything he said. No one should make excuses for this man's word. If he failed to live up to those words, then he will deal with the repercussions. That's it. No one should make excuses like "oh, well name one president that lived up to his campaigns.."...thats utter and complete bullshit considering this man sold himself to presidency on the basis that he WOULD live up this his words and be different. "CHANGE"---have you guys already forgotten about that word?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Libertarian, 30 Jan 2009 @ 9:53am

RE:
Skedaddler - I see your point to a certain extent, however what would lead our government to beleive people that couldn't spend money wisely in the first place, would all of a sudden have this newfound wisdom on how to spend it correctly now. The difference is that we, the taxpayers, will be flipping that bill.
I'm not an economist either, so I don't know the answers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Skedaddler, 30 Jan 2009 @ 10:18am
  
  Re: RE:
  I am with you on the concern. It's just I have a harder time blaming the ignorant masses who are scrambling to get a piece than the unethical criminals in wallstreet or washington. One of the few things on this subject I know for certain is that eight years of tax breaks for the rich and Bush's deregulations have not worked for me. I got my mortgage in good faith and can barely keep up the payments today. And I've gotten raises. My houses value has dropped, cost of living has risen higher than my wage and my groceries are getting smaller and smaller to the dollar. I don't think that Bush ever did a thing domestically in my best interest. I'm ready for new blood and willing to see what happens before claiming failure.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nick, 30 Jan 2009 @ 9:53am

You can summarize this whole page of garbage with three words.

Buh huh huh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Skedaddler, 30 Jan 2009 @ 10:10am
  
  Re:
  Very useful, thanks a whole lot Nick. I can't even tell which side of the argument you are on. You are an asset to the nation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- interval, 30 Jan 2009 @ 10:46am
  
  Re:
  You obviously weren't so busy in your life though that you were able to take two seconds out and type in something so utterly inane and useless as your tripe, so, go fuck yourself.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast, 30 Jan 2009 @ 10:45am

Sorry, but he's no political savior. It's business as usual in Washington.

Yep, same bankers - just pulling the strings on a different puppet now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ToySouljah, 30 Jan 2009 @ 7:00pm
  
  Re:
  I think that is what the people of this country have forgotten. The President is just a puppet and has limited powers since he is under the gun of the Federal Reserve to do as they and their investors say. The US has not belonged to "the people" since 1913 when Wilson signed the Glass-Owen Bill while the Republican party was on holiday recess (signed 12/23/1913). Yes, the president appoints the chairman and he has to pass through senate, but after that any decisions do not have to be approved by the president or any member of the executive branch. This Bill also granted full power of monetary policies from all US banks to the Federal Reserve. So the country basically fought the British for nothing since we fought to get the British banking influences out of the US. Since the British own the Federal Reserve...we are owned by the Brits. Why else do you think Greenspan was knighted? It was a reward for serving his masters well...if the President were to be knighted then it would raise a lot of flags...lol. The Federal Reserve was made to throw us back into (monetary) slavery. Do you honestly think we will ever clear our national deficit? The whole point was to create a perpetual debt that can never be paid back.
  
  Just google "Federal Reserve history" and you can learn a lot about who really runs this country. We need to eliminate the Federal Reserve and get the British influence out of the US again...I smell a revolution coming once people wake up and realize we were sold out A LONG TIME AGO.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another AC, 30 Jan 2009 @ 10:54am

Totally unreasonable
I cannot believe how close minded and stubborn you people are. I never liked Bush but was usually willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and see what happened. Obama has disapointed me on some of his appointments and there is a bunch of crap in the stimulus that I don't agree with, but nothing is going to change unless we give someone a chance, at least his heart seems in the right place and at this point looks like he wants the federal government to work as a team to get things done. Some of you people (the I TOLD YOU SO's and "New Boss just like the old boss")want him to fail, want the United States to fail, just so you can be right and it is downright pathetic. Regardless of who got in there I was and still am willing to wait a year or 2 and see how it plays out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 10:58am

Everyone should just STFU. Yeah, GWB deregulated industries, but seems to me a dem. was head of the banking commission the past two years. Where was Barney?

We bitch and moan that our roads suck, our bridges are falling down and there is too much traffic, but we won't elect anyone that would raise the gas tax.

We say we want to get off oil, but try to build a wind farm (like say in view of the Kennedy compound) and groups organize to oppose it. No oil, but don't build a nuc power plant near me. No oil, but we can't use coal.

Meanwhile, for this year, probably over 50% of the people who voted will not have paid any income tax (note I say income tax, not sales tax or SS or Medicare.)

Another point, you can't pay your mortgage? Why not? Did you get a loan you couldn't afford? Did you get a ARM? An ARM when rates were historically low?

Now, we have congress printing up money and giving it away. Where do we all think this is going? It sure doesn't look good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Justin, 30 Jan 2009 @ 11:09am
  
  Re:
  Well put ...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DueDoe, 30 Jan 2009 @ 11:06am

“R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N”
How do you spell Depression? = “R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bob, 30 Jan 2009 @ 11:10am

OMFG
You mean to tell me that this media darling B. Hussein Obama is not the second coming of the messiah. LOL no shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GHynson, 30 Jan 2009 @ 11:32am

GHynson For President!!
GHynson 2012
I'll fix all the problems,..
I promise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rich Kulawiec, 30 Jan 2009 @ 11:44am

See http://fdsys.gpo.gov/
And note that there are already over a million documents there, from the various branches of the federal government. More are being added every day -- new ones as they arrive, old ones as they're converted. You can search them, including all their metadata, and you can download them. (Heck, you could download them all and feed them to your own search engine if you wanted to.)

Of course, none of us will agree with everything we read there -- but the point is that we CAN read it there. And granted, this doesn't bring full transparency to government -- lobbyists still can operate behind closed doors -- but it sure is a step in the right direction.

Political comment: we've just endured 8 years of the stupidest President we've ever had. Like or dislike his politics, there can be no serious debate over his utter, complete, appalling lack of rudimentary intellectual ability. This has, you may have noticed, left one hell of a mess for the next guy to clean up. So you might consider waiting, oh, I don't know, maybe a few months, before you begin passing judgment on how well the shoveling-out process is going. It might also cross your mind, while you're waiting, to consider the possibility that someone capable of becoming a Constitutional law scholar -- and a good one, by all reports -- is not only obviously and markedly superior to his predecessor, but may also be the same to many of his critics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 11:53am

Stupidest comment ever "one trillion dollars may not seem like a lot"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Xiera, 30 Jan 2009 @ 2:04pm
  
  Re:
  Stupidest comment ever? How else do you explain people's support for this bill? People have a hard time fathoming a number that high. A trillion becomes a lot more when you think of it as one million millions.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
anymouse, 30 Jan 2009 @ 12:16pm

Sheeple vs Corporations
"Skedaddler - I see your point to a certain extent, however what would lead our government to beleive people that couldn't spend money wisely in the first place, would all of a sudden have this newfound wisdom on how to spend it correctly now. The difference is that we, the taxpayers, will be flipping that bill. I'm not an economist either, so I don't know the answers."

This doesn't make any sense considering the government's 'bailout' mentality....
Investment banks failing.... govt gave them money
Insurance companies failing .... govt gave them money
Auto Industry failing.... govt gave them money

The entire government 'bailout' has been about giving MORE money to the companies who screwed things up in the first place. I for one would rather have all of that bailout money given to the Sheeple, who like the good little sheeple they are, would turn around and pay off their mortgages, credit card, and other debt. If the government really wanted to help 'the people' and stimulate the economy, all the billions of dollars would have gone to the lowest level (the people) rather than to the corporations who screwed the people over in the first place.

So my taxes are going to go up, and my earnings are going to do down thanks to the government bailout, and what am I personally going to get out of it? NOTHING. BUT the company who made millions selling CDO's is going to get free money from the government that I'm going to have to pay for with my taxes. Not to mention the fact that dumping billions of dollars into the economy thru these corporations is going to result in unheard of inflation. Just wait, it hasn't gotten there yet, but in 6-12 months when the $10,000 cash you have in the bank can only buy you $3000 worth of goods due to inflation created by our government, who are the real winners going to be? The ones who received millions in government handouts and sat on them (like the banks and insurance companies).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 12:51pm

Astroturfers
I didn't know the Bush administration was into this new Internet thingy. :]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF, 30 Jan 2009 @ 1:05pm

This entire thread = EPIC FAIL!!
I'm waiting to call Goodwin's law on this thread at any moment.

For everybody else who's responding to this thread

YOU FAIL...

Republicans = Democrats = Libertarians = YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS...

This is about your failure to get involved. Don't like Democrats and think they're socialists - VOTE! Don't like Republicans and think they're all corporate stooges? - VOTE! Don't libertarians and think they're a bunch of wackos? - VOTE DAMMIT!
* Turnout for all elections since 1950 has been falling. You have no right to complain about the system that you couldn't be bothered to even participate in... Turn off the TV, turn off the radio, put down the newspaper, magazine, blog - GET INVOLVED! See for yourself what a steaming pile of crap you have for a government, and then fix it. You have nobody to blame but yourselves.

To the poster who posted the line for the GPO... a better link is -

http://thomas.loc.gov

All of you - use this link, read what the shitbags we've elected are doing, and DEMAND results!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- interval, 30 Jan 2009 @ 2:11pm
  
  Re: This entire thread = EPIC FAIL!!
  @WTF: "I'm waiting to call Goodwin's law on this thread at any moment."
  
  But what would Hitler have done?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 3:15pm
  
  Re: This entire thread = EPIC FAIL!!
  And your assumption is that the vast majority of people commenting on this didn't vote? YOU FAIL.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 1:55pm

ITT: Plungers and Draino
It appears something has been backed up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2009 @ 2:15pm

Greenspan said it best...
..."The Fed isn't a magical piggy bank."

I'm also discouraged by all the bailout stuff, where banks and the financial sectors have gamed the system with TARP. What we need is for the US needs to make a very difficult, fast, and hard turn, to bring manufacturing back stateside.

By this, I mean incenting industries with exportable goods that those whom we can enter into commercial agreements with and our debtors (such as China) would buy. Even if they are foreign-owned, like Honda makes cars here, you know.

To all the haters out there, what have you accomplished this week that makes you feel like Obama has failed so much? Have you solve world hunger? Only then can you cast the first stone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eisenhans, 30 Jan 2009 @ 5:35pm

What is staggering is how many people actually think that "The President" any president for that matter,actually decides anything,surely by now everyone would know that these things are up to "The Faceless Stringpullers" (yes its a new word) that really run the country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gene Cavanaugh, 31 Jan 2009 @ 1:22pm

Lilly Ledbetter
IMO, you blew it! Yes, the administration should have put the bill up as promised (if they didn't - I don't see anything that makes me believe they didn't except unsupported claims), but as to the law being "controversial" - bull! It is "controversial" in the sense that laws against discrimination on the basis of race are "controversial". Can we assume that the President would accept lower pay as President if the "controversial" laws against discrimination had not passed? Is that a valid reason for opposing them?
To me, forcing companies to publicize wage scales is a wonderful benefit of this law, in addition to fighting sexual discrimination! Short term there will be some undesirable effects - hey, we can no longer buy slaves, either!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Iron Chef, 31 Jan 2009 @ 11:00pm
  
  Re: Lilly Ledbetter
  Gene,
  Usually I look forward to your comments. You should send an email to Mike to remove your comment, post-haste!
  
  Your the only person with a comment, for the past day, and now, that as I look up at the clock, I somehow I feel obligated to pick up the phone and give Jim Cramer a Happy Birthday wishes, but I decided to wait, a few minutes.
  
  So now, I can feel comfortable when I say "BOOYAH GENE".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Iron Chef, 31 Jan 2009 @ 11:10pm

No snot, Cramer's BDay is Feb 10th? Damn it. My GF's going to be pissed off when she gets the flowers.

Anyone work at FTD that can delay a shipment for me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Iron Chef, 31 Jan 2009 @ 11:15pm

I seriously thought it was the 1st.
I have this problem of associating things together. Usually they are right, but sometimes, they are terribly, early, not wrong, just early.

But I guess we can employ the Microsoft solution of it being an "undocumented feature", huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fred (profile), 1 Feb 2009 @ 1:34am

This was an emergency
Claiming this was "non emergency" legislation shows nothing but the fact that you are insensitive to the plight of women, who are not receiving equal pay for equal work. Their rights in the workplace have been trampled far too long, and the conservative-activist Supreme Court legitimized related discrimination cover-up practices last year, and fixing that wrong-headed Supreme Court decision WAS an emergency. Obama did the right thing, and in no way violated his stated principals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2009 @ 3:10pm

"Stupidest comment ever? How else do you explain people's support for this bill? People have a hard time fathoming a number that high. A trillion becomes a lot more when you think of it as one million millions."

Name me one person who doesn't think a trillion dollars is a lot of money?

Hell, Bill Gates thinks a trillion dollars is a lot of money. I just asked my 8 year old if a trillion dollars is a lot of money, she said "yeah, don't you already know that?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave Feustel, 2 Feb 2009 @ 7:23am

Obama's Transparancy Promise
Actually, by the Administrative Procedures Act of 1935 or
thereabouts, ALL legislation, rules and procedures MUST be
published in the Federal Register with a 30 day comment period before the legislation, etc, has the force and effect
of law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
blah, 4 Feb 2009 @ 3:49pm

wow
You must be joking. How minor an issue do you want to nitpick?

The world almost feels clean again since W's been gone. You people don't look beyond your own shores much, but he was probably one of the most despised men on the planet. The collective sigh of relief that went around the world when Obama took over produced enough wind energy to power 50 million homes for a year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kate, 15 Feb 2009 @ 4:48am

Hipocrasy Aspect
Before it was "BUSH LIED!!", now it's "Obama failed to live up to his promise". I am so sick of all of the media. Our congress just passed a bundle of handouts to groups that support democrats and helped Obama get elected. Billions to ACORN, a group convicted of voter fraud in many states. They register people (dead or not) to vote (only for democrats) and get subsidized by the taxpayers.

Anyone aware that he signed an Executive Order on January 27th authorizing that $20.3 million be spent bringing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with ties to Hamas here to the US?

Barak has been bought and paid for by the likes of George Soros and he is determined to severely cripple, if not destroy the USA. Thanks a bunch, useful idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eric, 16 Feb 2009 @ 10:04am

I'll get on my knees and pray we don't get fooled again
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
Strange, because I was just playing that song and I suddenly read something relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lihle Aviwe Vellem, 21 Apr 2009 @ 6:04am

Give the poor guy a chance
Well guys change is a long process and its not even a full year period that he has been in power. He might be working on long term goals to benefit his country. Unlike South African government who has been in power and produced nothing empty promises . they have the nerve to compaign and make all these empty promises. My point is he needs time to prove himself whilst his still in office and after that we decide lets atleast give him the courage to try strive for a better life he needs all the prayers he can get as running a country is not piece of chocolate cake So I fully support and cherish the American President
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lihle Aviwe Vellem, 21 Apr 2009 @ 6:04am

Give the poor guy a chance
Well guys change is a long process and its not even a full year period that he has been in power. He might be working on long term goals to benefit his country. Unlike South African government who has been in power and produced nothing but empty promises . they have the nerve to compaign and make all these empty promises. My point is he needs time to prove himself whilst his still in office and after that we decide lets atleast give him the courage to try strive for a better life he needs all the prayers he can get as running a country is not piece of chocolate cake So I fully support and cherish the American President
[ link to this | view in chronology ]