Obama's Speech

Nah, the doom talk was always, "If we don't do this right nownownownownownow, we'll fall into the abyss and be swallowed by the Unicorns who will think we are rainbows." It was created to get people to vote for something they hadn't carefully considered or given their constituents a chance to read.

And it didn't get more positive, until this speech. Even after the passage.

Anyway, it was the same type of doitnownownow that got us into Iraq, IMO. Fear mongering speeches are not beneficial to the citizens in any regular manner, shape, or form.


But the difference is that the the stuff about Iraq was horseshit while the dire condition of the economy is true. Additionally, the stuff about Iraq was unverifiable by the public whereas the condition of the economy is a matter of public record.

You can try to create an equivalence there all that you like, but it's a false one.
 
And many believed Bush's urgency to be important, others called it fear mongering.

I think that waiting for another week would not have changed very much at all, other than people may have been educated on the bill before it was voted on and Congress might have heard from a constituent or two. I think that better bills come from a more open dialogue, not quick votes against the (voted on) promise to allow 48 hours (too short but better than nothing) for constituents to read it before it was voted on.

And I prefer to assume my opinions are right, until proven otherwise. It gets confusing otherwise.

Oh, lord - how completely inappropriate & reaching is that Iraq analogy?

It's a really bad comparison, Damo. Really bad.
 
Oh, lord - how completely inappropriate & reaching is that Iraq analogy?

It's a really bad comparison, Damo. Really bad.
It's an example of fear mongering. IMO, this was more of the same. So, no. I am not reaching. Pretending that you cannot see it, IMO, is simply partisan blinders. A day or two is not going to matter in the larger picture and a more careful consideration with full input from constituents and a reasonable period to educate them... there's nothing that would have caused to fall apart.

Like the people who thought Bush's rhetoric was important and still do. It isn't because they can't see it, IMO. It is because they refuse to see anything wrong with something they associate with their own self worth.
 
It's an example of fear mongering. IMO, this was more of the same. So, no. I am not reaching. Pretending that you cannot see it, IMO, is simply partisan blinders.

Like the people who thought Bush's rhetoric was important and still do. It isn't because they can't see it, IMO. It is because they refuse to see anything wrong with something they associate their own worth with.

So...the economy hasn't really been tanking?

Thanks; that's a relief.

Like I said: bad, bad analogy. It doesn't work.
 
So...the economy hasn't really been tanking?

Thanks; that's a relief.

Like I said: bad, bad analogy. It doesn't work.
Straw man. It wouldn't tank more because the bill wasn't passed "nownownownownownow". Then Biden and his "even if it all works as planned it can still fail" talk. Yeah. Good stuff.

Again, pretending you can't see it is IMO a symbol of your dedication and a measure of how much of your own self worth you believe is attached to this vote. Not a measure of whether I am thinking clearly. I've been saying for months that we need to slow this down and do it right, while our leaders are running breakneck around shouting about how much "now" we're using up not voting.
 
Straw man. It wouldn't tank more because the bill wasn't passed "nownownownownownow".

Not a strawman. It directly addresses the complete inappropriateness of your Iraq analogy.

As for it not tanking more without swift action, says you. There are plenty - in & outside of the field - who disagree.
 
Not a strawman. It directly addresses the complete inappropriateness of your Iraq analogy.

As for it not tanking more without swift action, says you. There are plenty - in & outside of the field - who disagree.
Your strawman is the pretense that I said that the economy wasn't doing poorly at the moment. It's silly, weak, childish and should be beneath you.

And again, two days would still be "swift action" and allow us some time to learn about the bill before it passed. I believe your strawman is getting even weaker. Seriously. The two days he spent running about getting ready to talk us up in Denver could have been used contacting our congresspeople on the parts that were crap and should be changed before they voted.
 
Straw man. It wouldn't tank more because the bill wasn't passed "nownownownownownow". Then Biden and his "even if it all works as planned it can still fail" talk. Yeah. Good stuff.

Again, pretending you can't see it is IMO a symbol of your dedication and a measure of how much of your own self worth you believe is attached to this vote. Not a measure of whether I am thinking clearly. I've been saying for months that we need to slow this down and do it right, while our leaders are running breakneck around shouting about how much "now" we're using up not voting.


Doesn't the fact that the stimulus bill has been kicked around for months undermine your contention that it was passed in haste? At least try to be coherent.

And in the end a few more weeks would have changed exactly nothing. The Republicans would still vote no and the Democrats would still vote yes. More time is just time wasted.
 
I think back to the campaign of 2000 and the dot com bubble that burst in March 2000. Bush was accused of "talking down" the economy during the campaign. Was he fear mongering then or was he just being accurate about what was happening? I believe when he was talking about the falling economy he was promoting the need for his planned tax cuts.

Is that a similar analogy to Obama now?
 
Your strawman is the pretense that I said that the economy wasn't doing poorly at the moment. It's silly, weak, childish and should be beneath you.

And again, two days would still be "swift action" and allow us some time to learn about the bill before it passed. I believe your strawman is getting even weaker. Seriously. The two days he spent running about getting ready to talk us up in Denver could have been used contacting our congresspeople on the parts that were crap and should be changed before they voted.

LOL

Damo, you never would have been happy w/ the time given. Why can't you just admit that?

It's useless arguing. I can tell when you're starting to feel insecure about your position. I don't want to exacerbate that.
 
Your strawman is the pretense that I said that the economy wasn't doing poorly at the moment. It's silly, weak, childish and should be beneath you.

And again, two days would still be "swift action" and allow us some time to learn about the bill before it passed. I believe your strawman is getting even weaker.


But you raised the Iraq analogy. The Iraq analogy only works if the dire straits of the economy that Obama is "fearmongering" about are false, like the fearmongering about Iraq.

And, given the nonsense you are spewing, calling others names is a bit much.
 
Doesn't the fact that the stimulus bill has been kicked around for months undermine your contention that it was passed in haste? At least try to be coherent.

And in the end a few more weeks would have changed exactly nothing. The Republicans would still vote no and the Democrats would still vote yes. More time is just time wasted.
No. The Congress (led by Ds) voted to set a rule to allow 48 hours consideration with the bill posted on the web for constituents to consider before the final bill was passed. This was because they too understood the same point I am making. That they went against their own rules set (reminiscent of the pay as you go rule of the last Congress when they took control) doesn't show that it was suddenly a good idea to pass bills before constituent consideration and input.
 
LOL

Damo, you never would have been happy w/ the time given. Why can't you just admit that?

It's useless arguing. I can tell when you're starting to feel insecure about your position. I don't want to exacerbate that.
This is patently false. You and I had a frank conversation earlier today on health care, I suspect that if you look deep inside you'll remember it, where we pretty much agreed.

I don't look at everything the man does as "evil" or something. I do know fear mongering and artificial urgency when I see it. While swift action was needed, a couple more days sure didn't make the difference. If it was so desperate it get passed at that second, nownownow, why was it okay to sit and wait to sign? (The same amount of time that was promised for constituent input.)

Waiting a few days for constituent input is not a bad idea. It was one of the things I was looking forwards to after it was said that we were going to get that with this Congress.
 
But you raised the Iraq analogy. The Iraq analogy only works if the dire straits of the economy that Obama is "fearmongering" about are false, like the fearmongering about Iraq.

And, given the nonsense you are spewing, calling others names is a bit much.
No, fear mongering to get something passed quickly is the same whether you believe it is true or false. What is false is the "nownownow" portion when first the bill won't go into effect for more than a month anyway, consideration time and constituent input would not change that, and second it can sit back burner for photo op time at the signing.

In both cases the immediate urgency was false. And what name have I called you?

Your premise (that I said he was fearmongering about the current state of the economy) is false. I said he was fearmongering about the future state of the economy based on the false "nownownow" time line he set for passing the bill that suddenly required passing without informing the constituency, or considering any of their input while it was delayed for over three days (more than the time set by the Congress for public consideration and input).
 
No, fear mongering to get something passed quickly is the same whether you believe it is true or false. What is false is the "nownownow" portion when first the bill won't go into effect for more than a month anyway, consideration time and constituent input would not change that, and second it can sit back burner for photo op time at the signing.

In both cases the immediate urgency was false. And what name have I called you?

Your premise (that I said he was fearmongering about the current state of the economy) is false. I said he was fearmongering about the future state of the economy based on the false "nownownow" time line he set for passing the bill that suddenly required passing without informing the constituency, or considering any of their input.


The bill was debated for three weeks prior to passage. It was signed the day after it was presented to the president. According to your standards any time a bill is amended you have to wait two days for final passage. That's stupid.

And you called Lorax silly, weak and childish when your Iraq War comparison is a fucking joke.


Edit: And as has been pointed out to you, there is lots of disagreement with your contention that the passage of the bill was not urgent, but, as you are wont to do, you ignore that pesky fact.
 
The bill was debated for three weeks prior to passage. It was signed the day after it was presented to the president. According to your standards any time a bill is amended you have to wait two days for final passage. That's stupid.

And you called Lorax silly, weak and childish when your Iraq War comparison is a fucking joke.


Edit: And as has been pointed out to you, there is lots of disagreement with your contention that the passage of the bill was not urgent, but, as you are wont to do, you ignore that pesky fact.
However, the bill was changed, in some cases quite a bit, before the final bill passed. And again I will mention that the Congress themselves set the rule to have the bills out for public consideration before final vote for at least 48 hours, that wasn't my rule although I looked forward to getting to read bills and give input if I felt it was necessary before they passed.

I didn't call him that, I called his action that. "That is silly, weak, and childish" is different than "You are"...

And again, they could have passed it 48 hours later after consideration and input and it still could have made it to Denver for a nice photo op and sig on Tuesday.

Nor would the entire world's economy have collapsed if it was a few more days. There is only one reason to push so hard that nobody gets to read the final result until it is passed.
 
Not surprising you loved it Darla considering many claims he made were questionable.

FACT CHECK: Obama's words on home aid ring hollow
By CALVIN WOODWARD and JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writers Calvin Woodward And Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press Writers
Wed Feb 25, 5:46 am ET

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama knows Americans are unhappy that their taxes will be used to rescue people who bought mansions beyond their means.

But his assurance Tuesday night that only the deserving will get help rang hollow.

Even officials in his administration, many supporters of the plan in Congress and the Federal Reserve chairman expect some of that money will go to people who used lousy judgment.

The president skipped over several complex economic circumstances in his speech to Congress — and may have started an international debate among trivia lovers and auto buffs over what country invented the car.

A look at some of his assertions:

OBAMA: "We have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and refinance their mortgages. It's a plan that won't help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining home values."

THE FACTS: If the administration has come up with a way to ensure money only goes to those who got in honest trouble, it hasn't said so.

Defending the program Tuesday at a Senate hearing, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said it's important to save those who made bad calls, for the greater good. He likened it to calling the fire department to put out a blaze caused by someone smoking in bed.

"I think the smart way to deal with a situation like that is to put out the fire, save him from his own consequences of his own action but then, going forward, enact penalties and set tougher rules about smoking in bed."

Similarly, the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. suggested this month it's not likely aid will be denied to all homeowners who overstated their income or assets to get a mortgage they couldn't afford.

"I think it's just simply impractical to try to do a forensic analysis of each and every one of these delinquent loans," Sheila Bair told National Public Radio.

___

OBAMA: "And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it."

THE FACTS: Depends what your definition of automobiles, is. According to the Library of Congress, the inventor of the first true automobile was probably Germany's Karl Benz, who created the first auto powered by an internal combustion gasoline engine, in 1885 or 1886. In the U.S., Charles Duryea tested what library researchers called the first successful gas-powered car in 1893. Nobody disputes that Henry Ford created the first assembly line that made cars affordable.

___

OBAMA: "We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before."

THE FACTS: Oil imports peaked in 2005 at just over 5 billion barrels, and have been declining slightly since. The figure in 2007 was 4.9 billion barrels, or about 58 percent of total consumption. The nation is on pace this year to import 4.7 billion barrels, and government projections are for imports to hold steady or decrease a bit over the next two decades.

___

OBAMA: "We have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade."

THE FACTS: Although 10-year projections are common in government, they don't mean much. And at times, they are a way for a president to pass on the most painful steps to his successor, by putting off big tax increases or spending cuts until someone else is in the White House.

Obama only has a real say on spending during the four years of his term. He may not be president after that and he certainly won't be 10 years from now.

___

OBAMA: "Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn't afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway. And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day."

THE FACTS: This may be so, but it isn't only Republicans who pushed for deregulation of the financial industries. The Clinton administration championed an easing of banking regulations, including legislation that ended the barrier between regular banks and Wall Street banks. That led to a deregulation that kept regular banks under tight federal regulation but extended lax regulation of Wall Street banks. Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, later an economic adviser to candidate Obama, was in the forefront in pushing for this deregulation.

___

OBAMA: "In this budget, we will end education programs that don't work and end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don't need them. We'll eliminate the no-bid contracts that have wasted billions in Iraq, and reform our defense budget so that we're not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don't use. We will root out the waste, fraud and abuse in our Medicare program that doesn't make our seniors any healthier, and we will restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas."

THE FACTS: First, his budget does not accomplish any of that. It only proposes those steps. That's all a president can do, because control over spending rests with Congress. Obama's proposals here are a wish list and some items, including corporate tax increases and cuts in agricultural aid, will be a tough sale in Congress.

Second, waste, fraud and abuse are routinely targeted by presidents who later find that the savings realized seldom amount to significant sums. Programs that a president might consider wasteful have staunch defenders in Congress who have fought off similar efforts in the past.

___

OBAMA: "Thanks to our recovery plan, we will double this nation's supply of renewable energy in the next three years."

THE FACTS: While the president's stimulus package includes billions in aid for renewable energy and conservation, his goal is unlikely to be achieved through the recovery plan alone.

In 2007, the U.S. produced 8.4 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, including hydroelectric dams, solar panels and windmills. Under the status quo, the Energy Department says, it will take more than two decades to boost that figure to 12.5 percent.

If Obama is to achieve his much more ambitious goal, Congress would need to mandate it. That is the thrust of an energy bill that is expected to be introduced in coming weeks.

___

OBAMA: "Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs."

THE FACTS: This is a recurrent Obama formulation. But job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers.

The president's own economists, in a report prepared last month, stated, "It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error."

Beyond that, it's unlikely the nation will ever know how many jobs are saved as a result of the stimulus. While it's clear when jobs are abolished, there's no economic gauge that tracks job preservation. The estimates are based on economic assumptions of how many jobs would be lost without the stimulus.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090225/ap_on_go_pr_wh/fact_check_obama/print
Dude, you're splitting pubic hairs with an electron microscope. I mean do you really think in the grand scheme of things that it's important that Karl Benz invented the car and that oil imports have dropped from 75% to 74%?
 
Well, that was the most liberal SOTU (I know it technically wasn't a SOTU) that I have ever heard. I could not be more thrilled with Obama on domestic policy, and because of this, I am very willing to give him a little leeway and extra time on Afghanistan and Iraq. As long as he doesn't start any new wars, it's good. I love this guy!

And I didn't think he was liberal enough on domestic policy. Boy did he fool me.

But the best part? He has the R's completely bamboozled. They haven't the first clue what to do with this guy. 80 %, check that number again, 80% of Americans loved this guy's speech last night, and that includes what was in it.

What he did to McCain over that helicopter question was a thing of beauty. He's the best natural politician I have ever seen, and he's the best any of us will ever see.

And he's a liberal. You guys have Elmer Jindal.

Eat shit R's!
:)

Elmer Jindal .. :) .. classic.

I agree that his liberal side raised its head in his speech, and he delivered it with authority and eloquence.

He is a good looking president and his family is beautiful.

He certainly put the republicans back on their heels in his address.

I'd give him a "B", not an "A" because he said some things that are troubling.

"I won't allow safe havens" is troubling. Does that mean he's going to attack the Swat Valley in Pakistan?

And as I suspected, he's going forward with his emphasis on charter and private schools That's not a liberal idea. His flunky basketball playing friend who he put in charge of Education has a dubious record of favoring charter and private schools and military acadamies over strengthening public schools.

And what he said about healthcare in spite of all the fanfare sounded more like heathcare tweaking than true healthcare reform.

But other than that he was pretty good.
 
Elmer Jindal .. :) .. classic.

I agree that his liberal side raised its head in his speech, and he delivered it with authority and eloquence.

He is a good looking president and his family is beautiful.

He certainly put the republicans back on their heels in his address.

I'd give him a "B", not an "A" because he said some things that are troubling.

"I won't allow safe havens" is troubling. Does that mean he's going to attack the Swat Valley in Pakistan?

And as I suspected, he's going forward with his emphasis on charter and private schools That's not a liberal idea. His flunky basketball playing friend who he put in charge of Education has a dubious record of favoring charter and private schools and military acadamies over strengthening public schools.

And what he said about healthcare in spite of all the fanfare sounded more like heathcare tweaking than true healthcare reform.

But other than that he was pretty good.

ROTFLMAO Or maybe we should ball him Bobby Gantry? LOL
 
Back
Top