[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's Brilliant First Year
Geesh, what a sad sack. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rf...@... wrote: Obama's Brilliant First Year By January, he will have accomplished more than any first-year president since Franklin Roosevelt.By Jacob Weisberg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's Brilliant First Year
Give ME money I don't have and I'll spend it like a drunken sailor, too! No one -- and I mean no one -- has spent more money more quickly than this president. But I guess that's what you get when you elect a community organiser for president. What do community organisers do? Why, they knock on the doors of various levels of government with hand extended asking for money. That's pretty much a full time job for those in the upper echelons of community organisations. So when this guy became president and is now on the OTHER side of the door he naturally thinks that his job is to give money to people on the other side of it...and the more he gives out, the better a job he thinks he is doing. After all, isn't that what he wanted government to do when he was on the asking side of the door? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rf...@... wrote: Obama's Brilliant First Year By January, he will have accomplished more than any first-year president since Franklin Roosevelt.By Jacob Weisberg [Barack Obama. Click image to expand.] http://www.slate.com/id/2236712/ Barack Obama About one thing, left and right seem to agree these days: Obama hasn't done anything yet. Maureen Dowd http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/opinion/22dowd.html?_r=1%26em and Dick Cheney http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/21/AR20091\ 02104242.html have found common ground in scoffing at the president's dithering. Newsweek recently ran a sympathetic cover story titled, Yes He Can (But He Sure Hasn't Yet). The sarcasm brigade thinks it's finally found an Achilles' heel in his lack of accomplishments. When you look at my record, it's very clear what I've done so far and that is nothing. Nada. Almost one year and nothing to show for it, Obama stand-in Fred Armisen recently riffed on Saturday Night Live. It's chow time http://www.afterelton.com/blog/edkennedy/daily-show-10-06-09 , Jon Stewart asserts, for a president who hasn't followed through on his promises. This conventional wisdom about Obama's first year isn't just prematureit's sure to be flipped on its head by the anniversary of his inauguration on Jan. 20. If, as seems increasingly likely, Obama wins passage of a health care reform a bill by that date, he will deliver his first State of the Union address having accomplished more than any other postwar American president at a comparable point in his presidency. This isn't an ideological point or one that depends on agreement with his policies. It's a neutral assessment of his emerging recordhow many big, transformational things Obama is likely to have made happen in his first 12 months in office. The case for Obama's successful freshman year rests above all on the health care legislation now awaiting action in the Senate. Democrats have been trying to pass national health insurance for 60 years. Past presidents who tried to make it happen and failed include Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. Through the summer, Obama caught flak http://www.slate.com/id/2224026/ for letting Congress lead the process, as opposed to setting out his own proposal. Now his political strategy is being vindicated. The bill he signs may be flawed in any number of waysweak on cost control, too tied to the employer-based system, and inadequate in terms of consumer choice. But given the vastness of the enterprise and the political obstacles, passing an imperfect behemoth and improving it later is probably the only way to succeed where his predecessors failed. We are so submerged in the details of this debatewhether the bill will include a public option, limit coverage for abortion, or tax Botox http://www.slate.com/id/2236447/ that it's easy to lose sight of the magnitude of the impending change. For the federal government to take responsibility for health coverage will be a transformation of the American social contract and the single biggest change in government's role since the New Deal. If Obama governs for four or eight years and accomplishes nothing else, he may be judged the most consequential domestic president since LBJ. He will also undermine the view that Ronald Reagan permanently reversed a 50-year tide of American liberalism. Obama's claim to a fertile first year doesn't rest on health care alone. There's mounting evidence that the $787 billion economic stimulus he signed in Februarycombined with the bank bailout packageprevented an economic depression. Should the stimulus have been larger? Should it have been more weighted to short-term spending, as opposed to long-term tax cuts? Would a second round be a good idea? Pundits and policymakers will argue these questions for years to come. But few mainstream economists seriously dispute that Obama's decisive action prevented a much deeper downturn and restored economic growth in the third quarter. The
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's Brilliant First Year
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ShempMcGurk shempmcg...@... wrote: Give ME money I don't have and I'll spend it like a drunken sailor, too! No one -- and I mean no one -- has spent more money more quickly than this president. No president has *needed* to spend money more quickly than this president. In fact, he didn't spend enough quickly enough. But if he hadn't spent what he did when he did, the economic situation in this country would be far, *far* worse than it is now. But I guess that's what you get when you elect a community organiser for president. What do community organisers do? Why, they knock on the doors of various levels of government with hand extended asking for money. Uh, no, that's not what community organizers do. Maybe that's called community organizing in Canada, but not in the U.S.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's Brilliant First Year
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ShempMcGurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Give ME money I don't have and I'll spend it like a drunken sailor, too! No one -- and I mean no one -- has spent more money more quickly than this president. No president has *needed* to spend money more quickly than this president. In fact, he didn't spend enough quickly enough. But if he hadn't spent what he did when he did, the economic situation in this country would be far, *far* worse than it is now. Well, then, you have to acknowledge that that figure of hate, George Bush, did a good thing because HE started all the spending and it was done with Obama's approval (remember that meeting in the oval office while the campaign was going on with Bush, McCain, and Obama) and Obama continued it and expanded it. So it was NOT change we can beleive it...it was unchange and expansion of a George Bush policy. You can't have it both ways, folks. But I guess that's what you get when you elect a community organiser for president. What do community organisers do? Why, they knock on the doors of various levels of government with hand extended asking for money. Uh, no, that's not what community organizers do. Maybe that's called community organizing in Canada, but not in the U.S. You have obviously done very little community organising in either country. Again, I was referring to the upper echelons of community organisations and that is precisely what their main activity is. People on the lower echelons - like, obviously, you, Judy, if that has been your experience -- don't go to government to raise funds. They either do the peon work or go to individuals and small companies to ask for money. That's not what the Harvard educated elitist Barack Obama was engaged in (and, indeed, it would have been a waste to use him doing that kind of stuff).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's Brilliant First Year
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ShempMcGurk shempmcg...@... wrote: Give ME money I don't have and I'll spend it like a drunken sailor, too! No one -- and I mean no one -- has spent more money more quickly than this president. Bananas. What Caused the Budget Deficit? David Leonhardt has a nice article breaking down the sources http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?hp of the growth in the budget deficit. Since Leonhardt works for The New York Times rather than USA Today, they didn't see fit to illustrate his article with a pie chart, but I made one myself: [deficit] The first category the business cycle accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing. Second, Bush-era legislation like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, [that] not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt. Third, Obama's main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000 [...] 20 percent of the swing. Fourth, About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. Fifth, only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama's agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas. In other words, the very high deficits are not Obama's fault according to any normal way of assessing political blame... More here: http://snipurl.com/rtyig http://snipurl.com/rtyig [yglesias_thinkprogress_org] But I guess that's what you get when you elect a community organiser for president. What do community organisers do? Why, they knock on the doors of various levels of government with hand extended asking for money. That's pretty much a full time job for those in the upper echelons of community organisations. So when this guy became president and is now on the OTHER side of the door he naturally thinks that his job is to give money to people on the other side of it...and the more he gives out, the better a job he thinks he is doing. After all, isn't that what he wanted government to do when he was on the asking side of the door? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: Obama's Brilliant First Year By January, he will have accomplished more than any first-year president since Franklin Roosevelt.By Jacob Weisberg [Barack Obama. Click image to expand.] http://www.slate.com/id/2236712/ Barack Obama About one thing, left and right seem to agree these days: Obama hasn't done anything yet. Maureen Dowd http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/opinion/22dowd.html?_r=1%26em and Dick Cheney http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/21/AR20091\ \ 02104242.html have found common ground in scoffing at the president's dithering. Newsweek recently ran a sympathetic cover story titled, Yes He Can (But He Sure Hasn't Yet). The sarcasm brigade thinks it's finally found an Achilles' heel in his lack of accomplishments. When you look at my record, it's very clear what I've done so far and that is nothing. Nada. Almost one year and nothing to show for it, Obama stand-in Fred Armisen recently riffed on Saturday Night Live. It's chow time http://www.afterelton.com/blog/edkennedy/daily-show-10-06-09 , Jon Stewart asserts, for a president who hasn't followed through on his promises. This conventional wisdom about Obama's first year isn't just prematureit's sure to be flipped on its head by the anniversary of his inauguration on Jan. 20. If, as seems increasingly likely, Obama wins passage of a health care reform a bill by that date, he will deliver his first State of the Union address having accomplished more than any other postwar American president at a comparable point in his presidency. This isn't an ideological point or one that depends on agreement with his policies. It's a neutral assessment of his emerging recordhow many big, transformational things Obama is likely to have made happen in his first 12 months in office. The case for Obama's successful freshman year rests above all on the health care legislation now awaiting action in the Senate. Democrats have been trying to pass national health insurance for 60 years. Past presidents who tried to make it happen and failed include Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. Through the summer, Obama caught flak http://www.slate.com/id/2224026/ for letting Congress lead the process, as opposed to setting out his own proposal. Now his political strategy is being vindicated. The bill he signs may be flawed in any number of waysweak on cost control, too tied to the employer-based system, and inadequate in terms of consumer choice. But given the vastness of the enterprise and the political obstacles, passing an imperfect behemoth and improving it later is probably the only way
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's Brilliant First Year
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ShempMcGurk shempmcg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ShempMcGurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Give ME money I don't have and I'll spend it like a drunken sailor, too! No one -- and I mean no one -- has spent more money more quickly than this president. No president has *needed* to spend money more quickly than this president. In fact, he didn't spend enough quickly enough. But if he hadn't spent what he did when he did, the economic situation in this country would be far, *far* worse than it is now. Well, then, you have to acknowledge that that figure of hate, George Bush, did a good thing because HE started all the spending and it was done with Obama's approval (remember that meeting in the oval office while the campaign was going on with Bush, McCain, and Obama) and Obama continued it and expanded it. So it was NOT change we can beleive it...it was unchange and expansion of a George Bush policy. You can't have it both ways, folks. Both ways are are two sides of the same coin-donominator.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's Brilliant First Year
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ShempMcGurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Give ME money I don't have and I'll spend it like a drunken sailor, too! No one -- and I mean no one -- has spent more money more quickly than this president. No president has *needed* to spend money more quickly than this president. In fact, he didn't spend enough quickly enough. But if he hadn't spent what he did when he did, the economic situation in this country would be far, *far* worse than it is now. Pure speculation!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's Brilliant First Year
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rf...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ShempMcGurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Give ME money I don't have and I'll spend it like a drunken sailor, too! No one -- and I mean no one -- has spent more money more quickly than this president. Bananas. ha ha ha ha ha. Thanks SO much for finding and reproducing the graph below (sorry if it doesn't reproduce from John's post) because it simply proves the point I have been trying to make since Obama became president: IT IS NOT CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IT, IT IS UNCHANGE FROM BUSH'S POLICIES AND, INDEED, EXPANSION OF THEM. Look at how little the slice of the pie is for Obama's agenda and how large the collective slices are for Bush policies, Extension of Bush policies and Stimulus bill! The Obama Agenda slice is the teeniest, tiniest of all the slices, singularly or collectively! As I just posted to Judy's response to me: you can't have it both ways. Either it is change you can believe it or it isn't. In this case it isn't as your graph clearly indicates. There is a T-Shirt advertised on the Drudge Report that says Welcome Back Carter with the Obama campaign symbol accompanying it. During the campaign, in response to Obama's claim to McCain that his presidency would be Bush's third term, McCain responded that Obama's would be Carter's second. But, to be honest and consistent we must conclude that, so far, it is Obama's presidency that has turned out to be Bush's third term...oh, and that's BEFORE we even discuss the Nobel Peace Prize winner's expansion of the war in Afghanistan. I'd say that makes Obama like LBJ and Vietnam but it's more like Nixon and Vietnam, isn't it? Because Vietnam wasn't Nixon's war -- he inherited from his two Democrat predecessors -- yet the Left made sure to publicly call it Nixon's war...and now we have Obama inheriting the Afghanistan war from a two-term Republican and, to be consistent, we shall have to now refer to it as Obama's war, especially since he is, if the press is to be believed, going to greatly expand the war effort in the coming weeks. What Caused the Budget Deficit? David Leonhardt has a nice article breaking down the sources http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?hp of the growth in the budget deficit. Since Leonhardt works for The New York Times rather than USA Today, they didn't see fit to illustrate his article with a pie chart, but I made one myself: [deficit] The first category the business cycle accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing. Second, Bush-era legislation like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, [that] not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt. Third, Obama's main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000 [...] 20 percent of the swing. Fourth, About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. Fifth, only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama's agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas. In other words, the very high deficits are not Obama's fault according to any normal way of assessing political blame... More here: http://snipurl.com/rtyig http://snipurl.com/rtyig [yglesias_thinkprogress_org] But I guess that's what you get when you elect a community organiser for president. What do community organisers do? Why, they knock on the doors of various levels of government with hand extended asking for money. That's pretty much a full time job for those in the upper echelons of community organisations. So when this guy became president and is now on the OTHER side of the door he naturally thinks that his job is to give money to people on the other side of it...and the more he gives out, the better a job he thinks he is doing. After all, isn't that what he wanted government to do when he was on the asking side of the door? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: Obama's Brilliant First Year By January, he will have accomplished more than any first-year president since Franklin Roosevelt.By Jacob Weisberg [Barack Obama. Click image to expand.] http://www.slate.com/id/2236712/ Barack Obama About one thing, left and right seem to agree these days: Obama hasn't done anything yet. Maureen Dowd http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/opinion/22dowd.html?_r=1%26em and Dick Cheney http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/21/AR20091\ \ \ 02104242.html have found common ground in scoffing at the president's dithering. Newsweek recently ran a sympathetic cover story titled, Yes He Can (But He Sure Hasn't Yet). The sarcasm brigade thinks it's finally found an Achilles' heel in his lack of
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's Brilliant First Year
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rf...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ShempMcGurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Give ME money I don't have and I'll spend it like a drunken sailor, too! No one -- and I mean no one -- has spent more money more quickly than this president. Bananas. What Caused the Budget Deficit? David Leonhardt has a nice article breaking down the sources http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?hp of the growth in the budget deficit. Since Leonhardt works for The New York Times rather than USA Today, they didn't see fit to illustrate his article with a pie chart, but I made one myself: [deficit] The first category the business cycle accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing. snip Bananas,indeed, Who was responsible for the business cycle bust-- It seems that the fed has been orchestrating this sort of BS almost since its beginning and people still haven't ben able to see it- what a farce. N.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's Brilliant First Year
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ShempMcGurk shempmcg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ShempMcGurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Give ME money I don't have and I'll spend it like a drunken sailor, too! No one -- and I mean no one -- has spent more money more quickly than this president. No president has *needed* to spend money more quickly than this president. In fact, he didn't spend enough quickly enough. But if he hadn't spent what he did when he did, the economic situation in this country would be far, *far* worse than it is now. Well, then, you have to acknowledge that that figure of hate, George Bush, did a good thing because HE started all the spending Right. He didn't have any choice if he wanted to avoid major financial disaster. and it was done with Obama's approval (remember that meeting in the oval office while the campaign was going on with Bush, McCain, and Obama) and Obama continued it and expanded it. So it was NOT change we can beleive it...it was unchange and expansion of a George Bush policy. Neither of them had any choice once the economy began to collapse (largely as a result of GWB's policies, including the billions spent in Iraq and on tax cuts for the wealthy, as well as lax oversight of financial institutions, many of which Obama is working to reverse). But I guess that's what you get when you elect a community organiser for president. What do community organisers do? Why, they knock on the doors of various levels of government with hand extended asking for money. Uh, no, that's not what community organizers do. Maybe that's called community organizing in Canada, but not in the U.S. You have obviously done very little community organising in either country. Again, I was referring to the upper echelons of community organisations and that is precisely what their main activity is. Community organizing doesn't raise funds from government because government is the *adversary*. Ever heard of Saul Alinsky? Community organizations formed as a result of community organizing (as distinct from other types of community organizations), if they were to be funded by government, would end up being coopted; they wouldn't be able to confront the very governments that were funding their existence. People on the lower echelons - like, obviously, you, Judy, if that has been your experience -- don't go to government to raise funds. They either do the peon work or go to individuals and small companies to ask for money. That's not what the Harvard educated elitist Barack Obama was engaged in (and, indeed, it would have been a waste to use him doing that kind of stuff). As a community organizer, oddly enough, Obama was primarily engaged in organizing the community, not in any kind of fundraising. The idea of community organizing is to get the community to recognize its self-interests, and then empower the community to confront local government and *demand* that it take various kinds of action to further those interests. This may include working for the election of sympathetic candidates, demonstrations, picketing, negotiating with local officials to improve community services, etc. But the community organizer's job is to organize and empower, not to make the actual demands him- or herself. The community organizer, rather than being a community leader, facilitates the community electing or appointing its own leaders; they're the ones who make the demands. I think you may be confusing other types of community organizations, whose leaders may well beg the government for funding, with the process of community organizing and the organizations that result from that process. None of this is to say that the ultimate goals of community organizing don't often involve getting the government to spend money, but it's a very specific confrontational approach that's quite different from standard hat-in-hand fundraising activities.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's Brilliant First Year
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: snip I think you may be confusing other types of community organizations, whose leaders may well beg the government for funding, with the process of community organizing and the organizations that result from that process. P.S.: When organizations formed as a result of community organizing need funding for their own activities--e.g., printing, mailing, and telephone costs, office space, gas, ads in local papers--they raise money from the community by holding local fundraising events (bake sales, auctions, raffles, benefit concerts, etc.), going door to door, and asking local businesses. They may also apply for grants from private foundations and ask for donations from civic-minded wealthy people. But generally they operate on a shoestring. The ultimate goal is to force government to accept the community as a partner in its decision making. Obviously it's highly political. And again, this is as distinct from, say, your local arts council or Big Brother/Big Sister program or branch of Habitat for Humanity. There may be interaction between the two types of groups, but the structure, process, and goals are quite different.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's Brilliant First Year
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: [snip] Neither of them had any choice once the economy began to collapse (largely as a result of GWB's policies, including the billions spent in Iraq and on tax cuts for the wealthy, as well as lax oversight of financial institutions, many of which Obama is working to reverse). [snip] I can't disagree with you vis a vis Bush's horrible spending record (which even pre late '08 stimulus and bail-out spending he had increased over 50% from what was Clinton's last year in office). But the tax cuts? Bush INCREASED the wealthy's share of income taxes that they paid as a percentage of overall revenue from income taxes. As for lax oversight of financial institutions: yes, Bush has to take blame because it happened on his watch. But it was the policies of Democrats mostly -- including those during the short-lived career of Senator Obama -- that was largely responsible fot he lax oversight. If Obama is working to reverse them, good for him! But it won't be done through government oversight as they are the #1 culprit in creating the environment for the problem to happen in the first place.
