President Obama's Congressional Republican Townhall Meeting

[cebalrai]

Not that I don't believe you, but... Source?

It was one of his state of the unions, I think in 2006. Just Yahoo search Bush and pork and you'll find all kinds of broken promises like this from him and the Republicans who controlled the legislature.

You'll also find millions in pork that was directly sponsored by Bush, including millions for his wife's pet projects. It's not hard to find.

 

[RightField]

Any financial analyst will tell you that it's too early to determine the extent of the impact that the stimulus had. You, despite your lack of being in a position to make that analysis and having virtually no access to data (because not enough data exists yet), have made a pseudo-analysis anyway. This shows your pattern of "thinking" in a partisan way rather than in a rational one.

By the way, even Bill O'Reiley and Cabuto (or whatever his name is) have been acknowledging that the stimulus had an effect. Not only that, but since a lot of the spending on the stimulus comes in a delayed fashion (ie public works projects), it will continue to stimulate for the next few years.

O'Reily's criticism of the stimulus recently was not that it did nothing but that some of the jobs it will create will not be created until late 2010 or 2011.

I have real work to do and have to get to it so this is the last comment.

It's all in your perspective. Going back to my earlier example, the liberal would say that it's "stimulus" because the horse and buggy union people are happy and will go out and spend their new found riches. Yes it's "stimulus", but it's very limited in its effectiveness and from a macroeconomic perspective, it's very inefficient. When the liberal asks a question of a CBO person, or O'Reilly or anyone else and says "Did the horse and buggy people get stimulated?" the answer would have to be yes and they can run around and say "You see, authorities acknowledge that the stimulus worked." Its how they play the game.

However, putting millions and millions into horse and buggys to keep them all in business, fat and happy for many years to come is probably not the best thing for the economy. No one wants to buy horse and buggies when better alternatives exist, yet the government is proping them up. You're taking capital out of the hands of people who could create jobs and industry in other fields and you're slowing the necessarily economic upheaval that leads to improved standards of living for everyone in the future.

The overall economy would have been better served to just let the horse and buggy people become unemployed and let the capital flow through markets to more efficient and creative uses (and then the horse and buggy makers find jobs in new fields with a better and more promising "industry"). The better question would have been..."was that the best use of the money available" and almost anyone you'd ask except for the horse and buggy union and their lawyers would have to say "No".

 

[cebalrai]

From Bloomburg:

Today, the Commerce Department reported that the U.S. economy grew at 5.7 percent from October through December, a “better-than-expected gain.” The expansion was the fastest in six years. Speaking on Bloomberg television today, Mark Zandi — who was an adviser to John McCain’s presidential campaign — heralded the positive numbers as a result of the stimulus passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Obama last February:

"I think stimulus was key to the 4th quarter. It was really critical to business fixed investment because there was a tax bonus depreciation in the stimulus that expired in December and juiced up fixed investment. And also, it was very critical to housing and residential investment because of the housing tax credit. And the decline in government spending would have been measurably greater without the money from the stimulus. So the stimulus was very, very important in the 4th quarter.

Also, the stimulus hasn't been all spent yet.

 

[BigGator5]

It was one of his state of the unions, I think in 2006. Just Yahoo search Bush and pork and you'll find all kinds of broken promises like this from him and the Republicans who controlled the legislature.

You'll also find millions in pork that was directly sponsored by Bush, including millions for his wife's pet projects. It's not hard to find.

Ok, well then, why is it ok for Obama to break his promise?

 

[RightField]

From Bloomburg:

Today, the Commerce Department reported that the U.S. economy grew at 5.7 percent from October through December, a “better-than-expected gain.” The expansion was the fastest in six years. Speaking on Bloomberg television today, Mark Zandi — who was an adviser to John McCain’s presidential campaign — heralded the positive numbers as a result of the stimulus passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Obama last February:

"I think stimulus was key to the 4th quarter. It was really critical to business fixed investment because there was a tax bonus depreciation in the stimulus that expired in December and juiced up fixed investment. And also, it was very critical to housing and residential investment because of the housing tax credit. And the decline in government spending would have been measurably greater without the money from the stimulus. So the stimulus was very, very important in the 4th quarter.

Also, the stimulus hasn't been all spent yet.

They are fiddling at the edges

1) Cars for clunkers....rebuild inventories on the lots, but the public is scared and hasn't started buying cars yet. Do you remember that the stimulus cost the taxpayer $24,000 per "new" car sold (above normal purchase trends)...not a good use of money, but the unions that now own the car companies sure liked it.
2) Stimulus to buy industrial equipment....business went out to buy new tools and equipment because the government gave them incentive to do so...but the tools aren't going to do much good if there's no demand for the products that the "incentivized" tools are there to create...another blip.
3) Housing tax credit...good gimic to get people to buy earlier than they otherwise planned to do...the housing market in many places hasn't hit bottom yet (due in part to government props) so that many of these people may well be upside down in their purchases in the next few months and then we'll have to bail them out. Will the purchasing of new houses continue after the stimulus ends?

Why don't we just reduce spending, and let money flow "normally" and leave it in the hands of creative and energetic people who will make the economy strong again instead of targeting silly little gimics (that happen to be targeted to enrich democrat constituencies at the expense of everyone else). Leave the money in the hands of the people and stop "steering" the money to favorite causes that donate to dems (its a vicious circle that leads to wrong direction).

 

[RightField]

Please do not be so naive.

 

[cebalrai]

They are fiddling at the edges

1) Cars for clunkers....rebuild inventories on the lots, but the public is scared and hasn't started buying cars yet. Do you remember that the stimulus cost the taxpayer $24,000 per "new" car sold (above normal purchase trends)...not a good use of money, but the unions that now own the car companies sure liked it.
2) Stimulus to buy industrial equipment....business went out to buy new tools and equipment because the government gave them incentive to do so...but the tools aren't going to do much good if there's no demand for the products that the "incentivized" tools are there to create...another blip.
3) Housing tax credit...good gimic to get people to buy earlier than they otherwise planned to do...the housing market in many places hasn't hit bottom yet (due in part to government props) so that many of these people may well be upside down in their purchases in the next few months and then we'll have to bail them out. Will the purchasing of new houses continue after the stimulus ends?

Why don't we just reduce spending, and let money flow "normally" and leave it in the hands of creative and energetic people who will make the economy strong again instead of targeting silly little gimics (that happen to be targeted to enrich democrat constituencies at the expense of everyone else). Leave the money in the hands of the people and stop "steering" the money to favorite causes that donate to dems (its a vicious circle that leads to wrong direction).

For one, the stimulus was directed at a lot more things than you listed.

Secondly, it's not being given to "favorite causes that donate to the dems". I consume conservative media all the time and I'm not even hearing them clamor about this...

Thirdly, you ask "will the positive trend in housing continue after the stimulus ends?". Well, during an economic recovery it invariably trends positively regardless of stimulus.... A stimulus may make it more robust however.

Why don't we just reduce spending and let the money flow normally? If we did that, and the recovery was slower, you would just bitch about how Obama is responsible for a slow recovery. And you would bitch that Obama isn't doing anything about the ailing economy. You also need to realize that big cuts in government spending works as an anti-stimulus that can hurt the economy. That what you want?

Remember this: history tells us that the Republicans are addicted to spending, so stop looking to them as some kind of party that's going to make cuts. They talk a good game, but when they get in power they borrow-and-spend at record levels (see Bush presidency). You've being suckered in by them man. Wake up.

 

[RightField]

Doh!

Obama's Stunning Admission
Posted by Tom Bevan

There's been a remarkable amount of coverage of President Obama's appearance at the House Republican retreat today, but I haven't seen anyone focus on the President's rather stunning admission about the Democrats' health care legislation (Video):

"The last thing I will say, though -- let me say this about health care and the health care debate, because I think it also bears on a whole lot of other issues. If you look at the package that we've presented -- and there's some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating, we were in the process of eliminating. For example, we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your -- if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you're not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge. "[emphasis added]


If we take this statement at face value, President Obama is admitting the the health care bills passed by either the House or Senate (or both) contained provisions which were "snuck in" - presumably by Democratic members and perhaps on behalf of certain lobbyists - that would have in fact prevented people from keeping their current insurance and/or choosing the doctor they want.

This was one of the core debates on health care throughout last year: Would President Obama and the Democrats' legislation allow government to come between citizens and their choice of doctors and insurers? Obama promised it wouldn't. Republicans said it would, and this was one of the aspects of the legislation that led them to characterize it as a government takeover of health care - the same characterization that Obama chastized the GOP for today.

So it's a bit of shock to find out now - from the President himself, no less - that one or both of the bills that passed Congress late last year (the House passed its version in late November, the Senate on Christmas Eve Day) contained language that would have violated this pledge.

 

[BigGator5]

Doh!

Jake Tapper of ABC noted that too.

 

[RightField]

Brainwashed you are...

The slope depends on assumptions I make? Huh? It's not my slope. This is from the non-partisan congressional budget office. Your "analysis" (where you're not even analyzing anything) is based on being a parrot.

Figure of speech...unless you work for the CBO, you probably weren't party to the development of the assumtions.

Second, you keep sneaking in personal attacks. Does that help you make your position clearer? It seems to me to be a sign of weakness. In addition, it distracts from the real points that you're trying to make. Politeness doesn't hurt and it makes for a much more civil discourse.

The CBO is supposed to be non-partisan, but the dems have been seriously brow-beating the CBO and they are human also. Without knowledge of the assumptions, the chart is largely meaningless. Does it include the healthcare program (with its giant new taxes and giant new spending). If you remember, when the CBO first started rating the healthcare program it noted significant deficit impact that grew larger in following decades (like Medicare), but then when the White House complained and the "invited them over" that suddenly a large amount of the projected deficits disappeared. Was that from a change in the program (none were noted), from a directed change in assumptions or was it based on an obligue or not-so-oblique threat? Is it making fair assessments of the real costs of the program such as dealing objectively with the CBO's own observation that the healthcare program now being debated doesn't effectively address rising costs? Does it include an unrealistic assumption of future growth. One CBO estimate said that they were assuming 4% economic growth in one report and 1.3% in another report issued around the same time by another group from the same organization...was the difference in anticipated growth rates an effort to make healthcare look better or an honest mistake?

The American People are smarter than you or the libs give us credit for. You got independents to lean towards Obama in 2008, mostly through a major liberal and press effort to distort the truth and blame Bush for every ill in the world including the real estate bubble that was mostly due to liberal policies. I must admit that Bush's awkward public speaking ability didn't help, but it was outweighed by misty recriminations such as "other countries don't like us"...lol..don't like Obama much either, even after the world apology tour.

It won't happen again. We're seeing that most independents are recognizing that liberals can't lead, don't have a coherent governing philosophy (besides growing the federal government and spreading the spoils to their friends) and are taking the country in a bad direction. The sooner the mid-term elections get here, the better....for all of us. (heck, even some democrat congressmen are starting to hold their noses).

 

[RightField]

For one, the stimulus was directed at a lot more things than you listed.

Secondly, it's not being given to "favorite causes that donate to the dems". I consume conservative media all the time and I'm not even hearing them clamor about this...

I'm writing a paper on my other computer and I really need to get back to it, this is a distraction.

You are correct, the stimulus was directed at a lot more things than I listed. But some sizable blocks were focused on the things that I mentioned.
However, most of it did go to "favorite causes that donate to the dems" in one form or another. The only thing that might not possible have gone that way was tax breaks for small businesses, but I didn't look at that line item closely either so I'm not entirely sure. It could very well have been a very targeted effort, I just don't know either way.

 

[Byron In Exile]

If I thought you had a chance in hell I'd step aside.
Lord knows I have no interest in your coital ambitions.

But there are probably better places and ways to woo a Liberal terrorist chica.

If you thought?

That's really the question, isn't it?

If you actually ever thought, what then?

Probably you'd delete all your posts.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The CBO is supposed to be non-partisan, but the dems have been seriously brow-beating the CBO and they are human also.

This is a rather serious charge. To my knowledge, the CBO has an excellent reputation at providing clear and unambiguous numbers when scoring bills.

Would you happen to have any supporting evidence to back your claim?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

... if you were to listen to the debate and, frankly, how some of you went after this bill, you'd think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot. No, I mean, that's how you guys, that's how you guys presented it.

And so I'm thinking to myself, well, how is it that a plan that is pretty centrist -- no, look, I mean, I'm just saying, I know you guys disagree, but if you look at the facts. If you look at the facts of this bill, most independent observers would say this is actually what many Republicans -- is similar to what many Republicans proposed to Bill Clinton when he was doing his debate on health care.

So all I'm saying is, we've got to close the gap a little bit between the rhetoric and the reality. ... if the way these issues are being presented by the Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives, what happens is you guys then don't have a lot of room to negotiate with me.

I mean, the fact of the matter is, is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You've given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you've been telling your constituents is, this guy is doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's going to destroy America.

And I would just say that we have to think about tone. ... This is part of what's happened in our politics, where we demonize the other side so much that when it comes to actually getting things done, it becomes tough to do.

This particular passage really is a testament to the wonder that is Barack Obama without a teleprompter, because within simply this one section of this one response there is so much. There is the president's unique confrontational approach to "breaking bread." You know. nothing says let's meet on the left for some good, old-fashioned bipartisanship like a nice healthy dose of presidential hectoring. And the comment about tone to top it off is just another fine example of the Obama projection that we've come to know and love.

Then there is the curious appearance of the word "Bolshevik." Now that's not a word you hear a president use every day. There's the "pretty centrist" tag being applied to the Democrats' fairly socialist health care plan. There are those famous and without doubt reliable "independent observers." Of course, you get the distinct sense that these independent observers are "independent" sort of in the same way that David Brooks is "conservative."

But what stands out above all else in this passage is the president's cluelessness as to why the Democrats' health care reform plans are on the rocks. According to Obama, the whole fiasco could have been avoided and health care reform accomplished had the Republicans simply been team players and not got the unwashed masses all riled up. I mean, how else could it be that a bill that is so "centrist" could be so disliked by the American people? There can really be only one explanation: Somebody put them up to it.

Let's go through the president's fascinating logic here, shall we? The Republican nobility has completely misrepresented the king's intentions, thereby creating a most unfortunate situation where the peasants don't trust him and his Democratic court anymore. And what's more, these common folk are in such a tizzy that they have left the Republican noblemen in Congress with absolutely no wiggle room; for if these Republicans concede anything now in an effort to improve the lot for all, they will be in hot water back home.

Earth to Barack Obama: It isn't the Republicans on Capitol Hill that have blocked your attempts to put America on the path towards government-run health care. It was the American people -- the same people that punished your party in 1994 when they tried to pull this stunt the last time. And it wasn't because they were told that it was "some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of [their] lives," or that "this guy is doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's going to destroy America." They figured that stuff out on their own.

Andy Wickersham

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Remember Obama always does the opposite of what he says he's doing...

Obama called Elmendorf to the White House after the CBO director testified that the present House bill would add $239 billion to the deficit over the next ten years, creating a rift between moderate and liberal Democrats in the House and abruptly halting the effort in the Senate. Obama denied that he intended to intimidate Elmendorf into providing more sympathetic numbers in subsequent analyses, but the White House got roundly criticized for inappropriately interfering with Congress’ independence in fiscal analysis.

...


Now, however, the White House has dispensed with the illusion of bullying and made it as overt as possible. This makes the intent of the earlier meeting crystal clear. They had hoped to intimidate Elmendorf in private, and since that didn’t work, they’re now doing it openly.

Nor is that the only instance of OMB overstepping its authority to interfere with the CBO. Orszag unexpectedly showed up at an April scorekeeping meeting regarding the controversial IMF funding demanded by the White House, which Politico reported at the time:

[more at]

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/26/the-omb-cbo-throwdown/

 

[RightField]

This is a rather serious charge. To my knowledge, the CBO has an excellent reputation at providing clear and unambiguous numbers when scoring bills.

Would you happen to have any supporting evidence to back your claim?

Meds wore off huh, or was politeness only reserved for the other thread?

You know I have backup. I'm in such a good mood that I will just have to go and dig it up for you. I just read it yesterday so it shouldn't be too difficult to find.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Prepare for some real vile and invective now...

In a Hot Air exclusive, I contacted Chuck Blahous of the Hudson Institute, formerly the deputy director of George Bush’s National Economic Council about the open and aggressive attack on the CBO from Orszag and the White House. Blahous finds it unseemly:

“It’s routine for OMB and CBO to have scoring differences. It’s also routine for the two agencies to separately acknowledge, explain and quantify them. What’s not routine is for each to overtly criticize the other. This is a bad road to go down in any case, but even more so because OMB probably has the glass house here. Institutionally, they’re just different; CBO is purely a referee, while OMB is part referee, part player because they’re part of the President’s policy development team. Moreover, OMB’s February budget presentation attracted a lot of justified criticism for its economic assumptions and for moving various deficit-expanding policies into the budget baseline. Furthermore, most of the claims about long-term cost savings from health care reform have been purely speculative, with no data from the actuaries to back them up. Still, I don’t expect CBO to hit back and to criticize OMB scoring, nor should they. Hopefully folks will walk back and cooler heads will prevail.”

Orszag has been an embarrassment as OMB director, and now he’s becoming dangerous to the separation of powers between the branches of government. Either Obama should put Orszag on a leash, or get rid of him immediately — and find a real budget director, not just a liberal-agenda hack.

__________________
Liberals would prefer no opposition. Behind the force field of political correctness, there should never be any disagreement once the liberal mind has decided that something is good for society. There can be no opposition to the "correct" way of thinking, and if you don't think "correctly," you are attacked.
Reverend Kenneth L. Hutcherson

 

[RightField]

Thanks AJ. That's a good story.

Here's a little more info that's not exactly what I said, but lends some credibility to it:

He said in his address that the bill would "preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan" - even though the Congressional Budget Office says millions will lose their current employer-provided coverage. He said it would reduce premiums for millions - when it will increase premiums for millions of others. He maintained that the CBO estimates it will reduce the deficit by "as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades" - but even the CBO considers the assumptions behind that estimate flimsy.

- Rich Lowery (Jan 30, 2010).

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

This White House employs Chicago Strong Arm tactics.



Throb is going to NOT read this and attack me, my family, and the source, because he's right all the time and everyone else lies.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Meds wore off huh, or was politeness only reserved for the other thread?

You know I have backup. I'm in such a good mood that I will just have to go and dig it up for you. I just read it yesterday so it shouldn't be too difficult to find.

My apologies, I had no idea asking you to back up your allegations would cause you distress. I'll make a little post-it note right here next to my computer to ever do that again.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

True to form.




Name-calling and ridicule, Throb's first AND ONLY discussion gambit...

 

[RightField]

My apologies, I had no idea asking you to back up your allegations would cause you distress. I'll make a little post-it note right here next to my computer to ever do that again.

You changed my name to "LTG Herpes", not a flattering moniker for those who are trying to be friendly and respectful of others and their opinions.

AJ found it yesterday:

Remember Obama always does the opposite of what he says he's doing...

Obama called Elmendorf to the White House after the CBO director testified that the present House bill would add $239 billion to the deficit over the next ten years, creating a rift between moderate and liberal Democrats in the House and abruptly halting the effort in the Senate. Obama denied that he intended to intimidate Elmendorf into providing more sympathetic numbers in subsequent analyses, but the White House got roundly criticized for inappropriately interfering with Congress’ independence in fiscal analysis.

...


Now, however, the White House has dispensed with the illusion of bullying and made it as overt as possible. This makes the intent of the earlier meeting crystal clear. They had hoped to intimidate Elmendorf in private, and since that didn’t work, they’re now doing it openly.

Nor is that the only instance of OMB overstepping its authority to interfere with the CBO. Orszag unexpectedly showed up at an April scorekeeping meeting regarding the controversial IMF funding demanded by the White House, which Politico reported at the time:

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

If you thought?

That's really the question, isn't it?

If you actually ever thought, what then?

Probably you'd delete all your posts.

Doubtful, but then I stand by, and can actually remember what it was I posted the next morning.

Carry on Byron. I'm sure the alcohol soaked tantrums are attractive to someone.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

True to form.




Name-calling and ridicule, Throb's first AND ONLY discussion gambit...

I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

That's why you don't shower...