Great Society

Children of the Sun => Newsday => Political Junkies => Topic started by: nacho on January 21, 2009, 10:49:50 AM

Title: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on January 21, 2009, 10:49:50 AM
Which is what it's all about, as far as the media is concerned.  Then Obama can start to vacation in Crawford, TX with Bush every other week.

From the IHT:



Quote
Day One: Obama tackles the economy and Iraq war

The Associated Press
Wednesday, January 21, 2009

WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama plunged into the task of governing a hurting nation yearning for change, summoning his economic team and military commanders for meetings on Wednesday, one day after claiming his place in history as the first black U.S. president.

The twin crises of the economy and Iraq were expected to take center stage on the new administration's first full working day.

In addition to meeting with his advisers, Obama was welcoming a stream of public visitors into the White House. Meanwhile, Congress was reviewing his economic revival plan and taking up the nominations of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to be secretary of state and Timothy Geithner for treasury secretary.

"Tonight, we celebrate. Tomorrow, the work begins," Obama declared Tuesday night at the Commander in Chief Ball. "Together, I am confident we will write the next great chapter in America's story." The ball was one of 10 official inaugural celebrations that kept him and First Lady Michelle Obama up into the early morning hours.

The Democrats now control both chambers of Congress and the White House for the first time since 1994, providing a chance for the new administration to succeed if he can work in concert effectively with congressional Republicans.

The capstone to four days of inaugural festivities was to take place at the Washington National Cathedral on Wednesday, with a national prayer service that is a tradition dating from George Washington's time. Obama and his wife planned to welcome hundreds of members of the public to a White House open house, part of his pledge to make government and those who govern more accessible for the governed.

A meeting with his economic team was planned to assess his approach and plot the way forward. Taking over the White House with 11 million Americans out of work and trillions of dollars in stock market savings lost, Obama said that turning around the economy was his first and greatest priority.

Congress has already given him a second installment of financial industry bailout money, worth $350 billion, and is fast-tracking a massive economic stimulus bill of $825 billion or more. Even those bold measures, on top of hundreds of billions of dollars in other federal spending over recent months, may not be enough to prevent the recession from growing deeper.

"Fortunately we've seen Congress immediately start working on the economic recovery package, getting that passed and putting people back to work," Obama said on ABC News. "That's going to be the thing we'll be most focused on."

The breakdown of confidence in the country's banks, occurring on the same day as his inauguration, gave the matter fresh urgency. Financial stocks, many of them falling by double digit percentages, led a huge drop on Wall Street on Tuesday that left the major indexes down more than 4 percent.

The market's faith in the outgoing Bush administration's $700 billion bailout effort was already waning. Many experts believe Obama's administration will have little choice but to pump more money into the banking sector or create an entity to buy banks' soured assets, like subprime mortgages, so they will start lending again.

The war in Iraq that he has promised to end featured prominently in Obama's first day as well.

According to officials, Obama was to conduct a video teleconference later Wednesday with members of the National Security Council as well as the U.S. military commanders in the two war zones.

Obama has said that he wants U.S. combat troops out of Iraq in 16 months, as long as doing so would not endanger either the Americans left behind for training and terrorism-fighting or the security gains in Iraq. He has said he would use that drawdown to bolster the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, where a resurgent Taliban has been gaining ground.

Summoned to the White House to discuss the way ahead in the wars were Defense Secretary Robert Gates - the lone Republican cabinet holdover from the Bush administration - along with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen; the top military commander in the Middle East, General David Petraeus; and other members of the security council.

Participating from the war front were to be General Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and General David McKiernan, the top commander in Afghanistan, according to two senior military officers.

While Obama got to work in earnest at the White House, Congress planned to do its part.

A Senate committee was reviewing a huge portion of Obama's economic revival package. The House of Representatives planned a vote on legislation setting conditions on Obama's use of the new infusion of financial bailout money.

Getting the Obama administration fully staffed also was proceeding.

Within hours of Obama assuming the presidency on Tuesday, the Senate approved six members of his cabinet. His choice of Clinton to be secretary of state awaited Senate action Wednesday, because her confirmation was held for a day over Republican concern about the foundation fund-raising of her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

Also left unconfirmed was Geithner, the nominee to head the Treasury Department. He faced the Senate Finance Committee, where he was expected to explain his initial failure to pay payroll taxes he owed while working for the International Monetary Fund.

The new president signaled that a flurry of executive actions, studied and prepared during his transition, would come quickly, too.

Among the immediate possibilities was the naming of a Middle East envoy, critical at a time of renewed hostilities between Israelis and the Palestinians; an order closing the U.S. military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; prohibiting - in most cases - harsh interrogation techniques for suspected terrorists; overturning the so-called Mexico City policy that forbids U.S. funding for family planning programs that offer abortion; and lifting President George W. Bush's limit on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

Preventative action was already taken on Tuesday. The new White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, ordered all federal agencies to put the brakes on any pending regulations that the Bush administration tried to push through in its waning days.

On the slightly more distant horizon, but part of the immediate workload, was the early February due date for sending the outlines of Obama's first budget request to Capitol Hill and plans for a State of the Union-like speech.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Nubbins on January 21, 2009, 11:05:32 AM
I can almost hear Yotoc screaming...
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on January 21, 2009, 12:24:53 PM
Quote
Ah, Day One.

Despite all the planning in the world, nothing quite goes exactly the way the Leader of the Free World would like.

That goes for serious, world changing things, like the delays in the confirmation votes for Secretary of State nominee Hillary Clinton and Attorney General nominee Eric Holder. They were put off for different reasons, but each is a frustration for the new administration.

Continues at:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/01/21/on_day_one_glitches_at_the_whi.html?wprss=44
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Nubbins on January 21, 2009, 02:57:26 PM
Man, the pictures rolling in of his first day in the Oval Office are great... his desk and everything around him are almost completely bare except for a phone and some paperwork.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 21, 2009, 03:47:49 PM
(https://greatsociety.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.greatsociety.org%2Fuploads%2Fuserfiles%2F8%2Fchill.jpg&hash=cad93cbb919bed62fa445ff467ad1107)
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on January 21, 2009, 04:09:04 PM
He's frozen all the Guantanamo cases:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/guantanamo.hearings/index.html

Quote
GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba (CNN) -- The presiding judge in the 9/11 terrorism case at the Guantanamo detention facility granted a delay in the case on Wednesday, according to a military official close to the proceedings.

All expected and normal.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: fajwat on January 21, 2009, 04:09:57 PM
sweet.

I hope.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Cassander on January 21, 2009, 08:59:52 PM
wait, i thought we were supposed to start the combined negro/islamic uprising today!
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on January 21, 2009, 09:02:33 PM
If you went to work in Northeast DC, like me, then you'd know well that the uprising has occurred. 
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Tatertots on January 22, 2009, 03:04:33 AM
(https://greatsociety.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.greatsociety.org%2Fuploads%2Fuserfiles%2F8%2Fchill.jpg&hash=cad93cbb919bed62fa445ff467ad1107)

That basically sums up the past few months for me.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on January 22, 2009, 12:22:03 PM
Man, Obama's approaching light speed.

More at the link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012102009.html?hpid=topnews

Quote
Obama Starts Reversing Bush Policies
Guantanamo Order Readied; Lobbying Rules Tightened

By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 22, 2009; A01

President Obama moved swiftly yesterday to begin rolling back eight years of his predecessor's policies, ordering tough new ethics rules and preparing to issue an order closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which has been at the center of the debate over the treatment of U.S. prisoners in the battle against terrorism.

Acting to address several promises he made during his campaign, Obama met with top generals about speeding the withdrawal from Iraq and gathered his senior economic advisers as he continued to push for a massive spending bill to create jobs.

He also signed a series of executive orders and directives intended to slow the revolving door between government service and lobbying, and ordered his administration to share information more freely with the public.

Today, he will issue another order calling for the closure of Guantanamo Bay within a year, an immediate case-by-case review of the 245 detainees remaining there, and the application of new rules governing the treatment and interrogation of prisoners, including compliance with international treaties that the Bush administration deemed inapplicable to suspects in terrorism cases.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 22, 2009, 12:51:20 PM
It's going to be an interesting four years, no?
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on January 22, 2009, 12:55:02 PM
I don't know, we're about to get tied up in the "Obama left his wallet in his other pants but found it after a couple of minutes" scandal.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on January 22, 2009, 01:02:40 PM
Political Machine has started their tally:

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/01/21/obamas-hits-and-misses-the-complete-tally/
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Tatertots on January 22, 2009, 01:09:41 PM
He's ordering Gitmo closed. Yay!
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Tatertots on January 22, 2009, 01:12:05 PM
and:

Quote
A second executive order formally bans torture by requiring that the Army field manual be used as the guide for terror interrogations. The order essentially ends the Bush administration's CIA program of enhanced interrogation methods.

Nice.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Nubbins on January 22, 2009, 01:13:43 PM
Even fisting?
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on January 22, 2009, 01:17:00 PM
Fisting is what you do when you're in love.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Cassander on January 23, 2009, 12:07:20 AM
but make sure you talk about it first, along with your dreams.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: monkey! on January 23, 2009, 11:15:15 AM
Generally, go Obama.

The public could do with more transparency.

However, transparency can easily be used to cover non-transparency in other places.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: fajwat on January 23, 2009, 01:59:32 PM
Every day the front page of Wapo has been heaven.  Fucking heaven.  I am overcome every morning. 


Quote from: Dana Priest, for wapo
President Obama yesterday eliminated the most controversial tools employed by his predecessor against terrorism suspects. With the stroke of his pen, he effectively declared an end to the "war on terror," as President George W. Bush had defined it, signaling to the world that the reach of the U.S. government in battling its enemies will not be limitless.

While Obama says he has no plans to diminish counterterrorism operations abroad, the notion that a president can circumvent long-standing U.S. laws simply by declaring war was halted by executive order in the Oval Office.

Key components of the secret structure developed under Bush are being swept away: The military's Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facility, where the rights of habeas corpus and due process had been denied detainees, will close, and the CIA is now prohibited from maintaining its own overseas prisons. And in a broad swipe at the Bush administration's lawyers, Obama nullified every legal order and opinion on interrogations issued by any lawyer in the executive branch after Sept. 11, 2001.

...
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Nubbins on January 23, 2009, 02:06:28 PM
Quote
Obama nullified every legal order and opinion on interrogations issued by any lawyer in the executive branch after Sept. 11, 2001.

holy shit
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on January 23, 2009, 02:12:58 PM
Oh, yeah, the Post is having a great time.  Love their headlines now:

Quote
Bush's 'War' On Terror Comes to a Sudden End

(The headline for what was quoted above.)

I also love that he's steamrolling through Congress...and they're letting him!


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/23/AR2009012300438.html?hpid=topnews

Quote
President Obama said today that efforts to pass a massive new economic stimulus package by mid-February are "on target," despite Republican lawmakers' objections to some elements of the plan.

Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on January 23, 2009, 02:15:02 PM
Of course, then there's this:

http://iht.com/articles/2009/01/23/mideast/detainee.1-414168.php

Quote
The emergence of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda's Yemeni branch has underscored the potential complications in carrying out the executive order that President Barack Obama signed that the detention center be shut down within a year.

Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: monkey! on January 23, 2009, 02:32:38 PM
Good stuff, Obama!

Wait... he's black?
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: fajwat on January 23, 2009, 02:39:13 PM
Of course, then there's this:

http://iht.com/articles/2009/01/23/mideast/detainee.1-414168.php

Quote
The emergence of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda's Yemeni branch has underscored the potential complications in carrying out the executive order that President Barack Obama signed that the detention center be shut down within a year.

I suppose that it's a too late to avoid habeus corpus and "fair and speedy trial" and other constitutional challenges if we moved them to US jails and courts.  I'm sure the ACLU and DOJ and others are looking into options which maximize safety, morality and compatibility with the constitution.  I hope we find something good.  If we were sure how to best shut it down today, I'd be screaming for it.

End of the day, it can't be perfect.  It'll probably have to be less perfect than the justice system which let OJ Simpson free.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: monkey! on January 23, 2009, 02:51:25 PM
OJ was innocent!

Remember the glove?
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Sirharles on January 26, 2009, 12:07:04 PM

I also love that he's steamrolling through Congress...and they're letting him!


Need I say more

(https://greatsociety.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fconchtees.com%2Fshirt%2Fobamunism%2Fobamunism.gif&hash=42aade2765beb54f274de69fa7aa31fc)
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on January 26, 2009, 12:13:44 PM
Oh!  Sirharles is terirble.

This is nice:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7851038.stm

Quote
Mr Obama ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to begin work on granting California and 13 other states an exemption from the federal Clear Air Act.

This would allow them to set their own standards on exhaust emissions and fuel efficiency, US media has reported aides to President Obama as saying.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had asked Mr Obama to reverse the Bush administration's insistence on a single, national standard.

California wants a 30% reduction in motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions by 2016, achieved by improving fuel efficiency standards.

President Obama also expected to order the transportation department to come up with new short-term rules on how carmakers can improve fuel efficiency.

A 2007 law required that new cars and trucks produced by 2020 obtain 35 miles per gallon of fuel (about 15km/litre).

Deadline change

However, Mr Bush did not put in place the regulations to enable the law to be carried out.

The new rules Mr Obama wants put in place would mean the new standard is reached by 2011, the New York Times said.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on January 26, 2009, 12:15:11 PM
And...some fallout:

Quote
The Vatican has condemned President Obama's move to restore US funding for family planning clinics abroad that give advice on or carry out abortions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7849600.stm
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Sirharles on January 26, 2009, 12:29:20 PM
Oh!  Sirharles is terirble.

I actually like some of the things he is doing..EPA thing, Stem Cell research etc.  I just don't have a lot of faith that he knows any other way to pay for it other than taxing the hell out of us.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on January 26, 2009, 12:51:06 PM
I'm all for taxes if they're turned around into domestic advancements and not, you know, invading Iran.  They can have all the taxes they want if it means, when I'm 70 and dying, they can fix me with stem cells.... And we're free from oil so we can cheerfully watch a third of the world collapse.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Sirharles on January 26, 2009, 12:58:17 PM
I'm all for taxes if they're turned around into domestic advancements and not, you know, invading Iran.  They can have all the taxes they want if it means, when I'm 70 and dying, they can fix me with stem cells.... And we're free from oil so we can cheerfully watch a third of the world collapse.

Well sure, but that won't ever happen.  Our taxes will be paying for this "stimulus package" for the next hundered years.  And we will never watch a third of the world collapse because we will "feel the need" to help them out...and how are we gonna pay for that?
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on January 26, 2009, 12:59:28 PM
I don't want to help them out.  I want death and destruction.  I want Burj Dubai to be good for nothing but drying skins and roosting birds.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Sirharles on January 26, 2009, 01:02:40 PM
Yea, but what you want and what you are going to get taxed for are two totally different things.

All Hail Reagan!! :biggrin:
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Matt on January 26, 2009, 01:54:28 PM

I also love that he's steamrolling through Congress...and they're letting him!


Need I say more

(https://greatsociety.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fconchtees.com%2Fshirt%2Fobamunism%2Fobamunism.gif&hash=42aade2765beb54f274de69fa7aa31fc)

pffft I wish.

Also, http://www.nypost.com/seven/01232009/news/politics/prez_zings_gop_foe_in_a_timulating_talk_151572.htm where Obama tells the Republicans to grow up. It's pretty funny.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: monkey! on January 26, 2009, 03:09:10 PM
Damned communists.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on January 26, 2009, 04:03:30 PM
More to get sirharles riled up.

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/01/26/5-of-the-crazier-things-in-the-stumulus-bill/

Quote
This $825 billion dollar economic stimulus package that we're going to be paying for for god knows how long has in it some - to put it nicely - unnecessary provisions that are clear indications some lawmakers are trying to take advantage of the country's horrible economic situation. They're trying to ride the wave of "stimulus needed now" sentiment to throw in things like cash for more grass on the National Mall - while at the same time, saying we may have to spend even more - potentially more than $1 trillion.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Matt on January 26, 2009, 04:13:33 PM
I quote John Oliver: "I have been in your malls. They are cathedrals to bullshit!"
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Sirharles on January 26, 2009, 05:23:18 PM
Will someone please explain to me how any of those things will "stimulate" the economy?  Anybody?
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: monkey! on January 26, 2009, 05:47:21 PM
They're stimulating!
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Tatertots on January 26, 2009, 09:09:09 PM
Are they fisting the economy? Because that's what couples do.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Matt on January 26, 2009, 09:19:26 PM
Will someone please explain to me how any of those things will "stimulate" the economy?  Anybody?

Paul Krugman can. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/opinion/26krugman.html?_r=1&sq=krugman&st=cse&scp=3&pagewanted=print
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Nubbins on January 26, 2009, 10:47:48 PM
Will someone please explain to me how any of those things will "stimulate" the economy?  Anybody?

It's funny, my entire family comes from Kansas, so when I was a kid we used to go there in the summertime to visit my aunts, uncles and grandparents.  Anyway, when you drive out of town into the farms, most of the dirt roads are lined with big oak trees.  My grandparents always told me that they were planted during the Great Depression as part of some public works program to give people jobs... the lines of trees also had the benefit of sheilding fields from winds to a certain degree to prevent erosion.

That's pretty much the only sense I can see behind using stimulus money to re-sod the National Mall.  Seems kind of like small-potatoes thinking for a problem so massive it defies description...
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on January 26, 2009, 10:49:22 PM
Look, the Mall's very important.  They need to resod it so that people can sunbathe on it and play sports and tear it all up again immediately after the sod is put down.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on January 26, 2009, 10:50:49 PM
Haha!  Man, it even looks like shit from space:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:National_mall_(east)_satellite_image.jpg
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Sirharles on January 27, 2009, 10:38:36 AM
Will someone please explain to me how any of those things will "stimulate" the economy?  Anybody?

Paul Krugman can. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/opinion/26krugman.html?_r=1&sq=krugman&st=cse&scp=3&pagewanted=print

See that doesn't explain how planting grass on the mall or revamping the Department of Agriculture building or buying hybrid cars will stimulate the economy. 

Okay maybe an argument can me made that these things create jobs....well I dare say that all the jobs that are created aren't going to make up for the hundreds of thousands of people out of work.  So again I ask how will this stimulate the economy?
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on January 27, 2009, 10:52:23 AM
Locally, it'll stimulate the economy by stopping the Maryland and Virginia governments declaring bankruptcy. 

Maryland's doing worse than DC these days!  Which is why we're all drinking poisonous water...though they won't release the water report, so we don't know how bad it is.  Though "clean water projects" tops the wishlist.

And clean water isn't Maryland's only concern.  It's the 5000 miles of aged pipeline that has a leak on EVERY SINGLE MILE.  Heh. WSSC says the big break on River Road is a sign of things to come.  We can expect more breaks more frequently unless they fix the entire length of the pipeline.

Virginia's stimulus comes in the form of their endless highway projects.  Get the construction workers moving again, really.  Very TVA thinking, which is how Virginia has been keeping afloat all these years.  We have always been building 95.  We have always been at war with concrete.

Personally, for you and I and all the other normal people, it means nothing.  It's a bailout plan on the state level that'll create more construction jobs for the lower classes, who then cash their checks at the counter and buy milk, beer, bread, and lottery tickets.  The government isn't interested in helping us out because we save our money and spend it wisely.  The only way for the economy to work is to get the money to the idiots who'll spend it immediately on baubles.

Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Matt on January 27, 2009, 01:55:53 PM
Krugman's column points out that tax breaks aren't the answer; government spending is. And if you look at historical precedent, that's what brought us out of the Great Depression (wartime spending on infrastructure is still direct government spending into the economy). Infrastructure improvements increase investment opportunities and decrease investment costs, as well as creating jobs for lower-skilled laborers, who are often hit the hardest when economic crises hit. Especially with this one, considering its impact on the housing market and how construction laborers are out of business. Therefore the important thing to do is get a steady source of income to them so they can start spending money again on things beyond the bare essentials or spending more on the bare essentials.

Mostly you're picking at strawmen in the details and holding them up, much as Krugman has criticized the Republicans for doing, as an example of why this plan won't work and you don't see why. Tax cuts can stimulate economic growth, but not as much as direct government spending on the economy.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Matt on January 27, 2009, 02:36:49 PM
Also, Obama's first TV interview was given to Al-Arabiya. This dude owns.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Matt on January 27, 2009, 04:41:51 PM
More Obama love: he apparently told Citigroup to fuck off when they wanted to buy a new $50 million jet.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Cassander on January 28, 2009, 01:45:12 AM
ok, so i see both sides to this issue.  of course, team obama was saddled with this huge thing that they didn't see coming a year ago, so i can understand their unwillingness to really dig deep and give us something smart and helpful.  but, nooooooo, help must, apparently, come immediately or else we all die.  so we get this bill filled with non-stimulating stimulants.  granted, i believe that this whole "infrastructure" thing could be beneficial in some cases, but back in the time of the WPA most guys knew how to wield a hammer or use a shovel.  you can't tell me that thousands of people are going to go, "well, i just got fired from a job where i had fifteen smoke breaks a day, all the free coffee i could drink, time to watch youtube videos all my college buddies were forwarding to me, and on fridays i could sneak out at 4:30 cause management didn't even come in.  now i guess i'll go work in the sun pouring concrete and really put myself into it because it's for AMERICA and a STEADY PAYCHECK!"  we could've gotten a lot of these projects done in the past twenty years if half of our "unemployed" population felt like switching job tracks for awhile or just putting down their 40 oz and "Homeless please help" sign for five minutes and actively searching for five minutes for a labor job.  as much as that sounds like right-wing talk-radio diatribe, it's the truth.  the reason all these systems are falling into disrepair is because the budget couldn't keep up with the demands of the laborers.  "you mean to tell me i've been spot-welding in a sewer for six months and you're not going to give me a raise? fuck you, i'll go work at TGI Fridays!"  the entitlement got way out of control, and now everything's rusted, rotted, and covered with a band-aid.  and we think pouring money into fixing it all is going to work at either end of the spectrum? granted, there will be some new jobs, but the quality of work ain't going to be like in the 30s, my friend. 

tax cuts, real true tax cuts, would really work in the short term, at least through this year.  think about it.  the government suddenly tells you that instead of filing for taxes this year, they're just going to keep 10% of what your income and give the rest back to you.  no stimulus check where you have to meet criteria or jump through hoops.  just simple arithmetic.  you don't think that would boost the economy?  last year people spent their stimulus checks on porn and electronics.  this year, it would all go to outstanding bills, getting the car fixed, new clothes for the kids, going out to eat, etc.  businesses stay open, people keep their jobs, money keeps flowing.  let the government borrow for programs it's already got running if it needs to.  there's no reason to run up more loans for new spending when we could just as easily let the nation keep some tax money and run up loans for current spending. 

in short, i'm still in favor of obama, but where's that promised scalpel? 
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on January 28, 2009, 06:06:10 AM
Nice, Cass.  I'm with you there.  Both on the analysis and the cry for that surgery. 

We're in a "white-tight" economy, as the blacks used to say (which is why sirharles fails to see the "stimulus" -- it's not for us, man).  Except we have a very different social structure now than when that slang term originated.  The larger problem is certainly being exposed.  What have we become, eh?
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Matt on January 28, 2009, 09:26:55 AM
Why is it "non-stimulating stimulants"? I mean, you guys are totally buying the bullshit line from the Republicans that we have to cut taxes. This stimulus is for "you guys" or "us"... it's just not as direct as before, and it's not being explicitly said to be targeted at the "white collar" (I'm guessing this is where you guys position yourself?) area, but white collar jobs totally benefit from the eventual development and improvement of the country. Tax cuts aren't the answer, especially because it would further income inequality. I totally disagree with over-entitlement of service programs; if anything we still take a shit on service people and especially unions.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Matt on January 28, 2009, 09:43:26 AM
Meanwhile...http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/education/28educ.html

Obama's plan doubles DOE spending. This is great.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on January 28, 2009, 10:04:55 AM
Why is it "non-stimulating stimulants"? I mean, you guys are totally buying the bullshit line from the Republicans that we have to cut taxes. This stimulus is for "you guys" or "us"... it's just not as direct as before, and it's not being explicitly said to be targeted at the "white collar" (I'm guessing this is where you guys position yourself?) area, but white collar jobs totally benefit from the eventual development and improvement of the country. Tax cuts aren't the answer, especially because it would further income inequality. I totally disagree with over-entitlement of service programs; if anything we still take a shit on service people and especially unions.

Just so we're straight on terminology, the "service industry" is what I'm in.  Phone and tech support, food service, retail, etc.  At least, that's how I define it.  Maybe I'm off...?

But I agree with Cass that the lower tier folks -- the welders and sewer cleaners, the skilled underclass -- has been crippled, partially by entitlement and partially by automation. 

Back to my local example -- the state of the Maryland water supply.  5000 miles of pipeline that has, simply, been left to rot.  And the WSSC is unable to fix it.  They lack the manpower (and the budget to hire people on).  We're seeing that throughout our infrastructure.  Construction jobs are down in the area, which is hitting the blue collar folks hard.  A lot of the Washington area foreclosures are thanks to the decline in construction. 

I wouldn't say "non-stimulating stimulants" because I believe this package (and you've said this, as well) is aimed at the underclass.  It always is.  And, yes, the benefits trickle down (or up) to all of us as the idiots start to spend their money again. 

Perhaps the issue (at least with me) is that I'm tired of the hype.  Call a spade a spade, if you will.  (Of course, they can't) It's not a stimulus.  It's a minority bailout because the rest of us are preying on their inability to live frugally and wisely.  That's how the wheel turns.  But it's called a "stimulus" to get the liberals all Action Squad, and I'm hating the single-minded, naive, illiterate, silver spoon, one track liberals that are now in power.  I hate them more than the conservatives.  It's kind of like trading out Hitler for Pol Pot.  The screaming firebrand lunatic American psyche has been replaced by fruitcake idealism.

Not condemning Obama...just his more ardent followers, and the now orphaned rage in them, and the language our idiotic government and media uses because we're all appalingly ignorant.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Reginald McGraw on January 28, 2009, 10:26:35 AM
Meanwhile...http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/education/28educ.html

Obama's plan doubles DOE spending. This is great.

Yes!  It's awesome!  If you want the federal government running schools in Bobsonville, Iowa.  Certainly some of the things mentioned in that article are decent programs, but this just seems like 10 more steps down the "Oh, no seatbelt law?  No money for roads for you, Wyoming!" path.

Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on January 28, 2009, 10:30:52 AM
Yeah.  I'm all for renovating schools and creating a modern day GI Bill, but, beyond that, the Feds need to stay out of our schools.

The Feds sticking their fingers in our education seriously cuts into my abortion business (in Maryland schools) and my homeroom prayer services (in Virginia schools) and the running gun battles (in DC schools). 
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 28, 2009, 10:36:23 AM
Infrastructure improvements increase investment opportunities and decrease investment costs, as well as creating jobs for lower-skilled laborers, who are often hit the hardest when economic crises hit. Especially with this one, considering its impact on the housing market and how construction laborers are out of business. Therefore the important thing to do is get a steady source of income to them so they can start spending money again on things beyond the bare essentials or spending more on the bare essentials.

In theory, this is all fine.  However, banks aren't lending and investors aren't investing because all the shitty home loans have everybody frozen up doing nothing lest they topple over if they try to move. All the financial institutions that have survived are "waiting it out."

I hope Obama's financial stimulus has an effect, but don't get your hopes up that it'll turn things around.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Nubbins on January 28, 2009, 03:20:18 PM
Here's my problem with tax cuts... they don't do shit for you if you're unemployed, which many of us are soon to be.  Beyond that, tax cuts do nothing to create employment opportunities.  Tax cuts are the penultimate band aid.

People can bitch about sodding the Mall all they want, but at the very least it's going to create $20 million worth of jobs to the people who sod it; people who, hopefully, will turn right around and spend that money because they're poor and sod things for a living.  I also believe that the Mall is a project which is technically "shovel ready"... if the plan passed today, you could see people out there working within a week.

Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Matt on January 28, 2009, 03:37:45 PM
See, RC, it's not just theory though. That was the basis of Roosevelt's New Deal policies, along with increased social security, and Obama should be taking the time repute the Laffer-influenced Friedman-ite economists who have been fucking our economy. Maureen Dowd put it a bit vitriolically today, but the point was made: the Republicans have been actively engaged in class warfare in favor of the rich for a long time.

I don't believe that things will turn around tomorrow, but there's some good potential here that I think some of you are too quick to scoff at because we've been told for so long and seen that government is incompetent. Of course government is run incompetently when the people who are running it don't want to have anything to do with it! (Besides run it, of course.) It's the frequently cited idea that schools fail so we should privatize them. Why are they failing? Because we're not putting enough funds into them. And I definitely believe that school funding should be derived from the federal government, not localized constituencies. Property tax has been terrible in terms of funding inner city schools especially, while it stratifies education and creates de facto private schools mostly only accessible for people who can move and have the affluence to live in higher-income (and thus, better funded) schools. Hell, I could see that myself when I was in high school.

Reggie, I'm not sure I get your point. Are seatbelt laws going to ruin the 1st amendment?
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 28, 2009, 03:47:43 PM
1.) It's not 1939, Matt.

2.) I don't think anyone's scoffing at the stimulus plan. It's a good step, but it's a small step. We just all understand that it's not enough to turn the tide of what's going on.

3.) This is likely going to sound awful to you, but they need to dump A LOT more money into the banks because the brunt of the problem is that no one is spending nor lending money if they can help it, not the richest investment firms or the poorest or the poor families. All those bad house loans need to be paid for somehow and no one (including the government) has the money to do so.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 28, 2009, 03:59:00 PM
And though I keep harping on the banks and housing loans, that's just one part of it.  This is also part of the problem: the economic shit storm is so multifaceted that even seasoned economists have trouble wrapping their heads around it, much less armchair pseudo-intellectuals like us.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Matt on January 28, 2009, 04:00:22 PM
I know that. (In response to #3) #1.... so? The principles are the same.

I know they have to dump a lot of money in those banks, but we're seeing actual accountability in how that money is used. And we're seeing the utter bullshit of Wall Street's pay, because they get our money and pay themselves off. Also, I think nationalizing the banks would be a great solution. Bad house loans aren't the root cause of this problem (improper mortgage swaps are) and they're the symptom that the average American needs help with. We'll see inflation, yes, but that's better than the Ron Paul-idealized alternative where we roam around, clinging to gold and guns (and maybe God).

Nakedcapitalism is doing a good job breaking down what's going on.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Reginald McGraw on January 28, 2009, 05:26:16 PM
I don't believe that things will turn around tomorrow, but there's some good potential here that I think some of you are too quick to scoff at because we've been told for so long and seen that government is incompetent. Of course government is run incompetently when the people who are running it don't want to have anything to do with it! (Besides run it, of course.) It's the frequently cited idea that schools fail so we should privatize them. Why are they failing? Because we're not putting enough funds into them. And I definitely believe that school funding should be derived from the federal government, not localized constituencies. Property tax has been terrible in terms of funding inner city schools especially, while it stratifies education and creates de facto private schools mostly only accessible for people who can move and have the affluence to live in higher-income (and thus, better funded) schools. Hell, I could see that myself when I was in high school.

Reggie, I'm not sure I get your point. Are seatbelt laws going to ruin the 1st amendment?

Yes, things won't turn around tomorrow.  Our government is broken.  Lobbyists and the people behind them have FAR too much influence in our government.  I know that you're feeling good about the direction of things because of the election (and I'll say that I think Obama has potential to do good), but it doesn't change the fundamental problems with our government.  Could our schools benefit from more money being given to teaching the students?  Yes, but the school systems are ALREADY getting huge amounts of money.  Where is it going?  It's going nowhere.  It is wasted and lost and embezzled and nobody is accountable.  Throwing more money from the federal level down will do two things: Increase our national debt and cause more money to be misappropriated.

And, no, extorting seatbelt laws and speed limits by withholding federal money doesn't necessarily affect the 1st amendment (although it could be argued).  The problem is the same as above.  The problem is that we DO have people who care about little more than remaining in power.  The problem is that we DO have people who are disconnected from reality because of years of bureaucracy and deal making and payoffs from special interests.  For all these reasons, government has a better chance of working when localization of the government happens.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: monkey! on January 28, 2009, 05:42:21 PM
Haha!  Man, it even looks like shit from space:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:National_mall_(east)_satellite_image.jpg

But it looked great in Forest Gump
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on January 28, 2009, 05:53:08 PM
It always looks suspiciously good on film.  I think there's a full-sized DC replica built somewhere in California.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: monkey! on January 28, 2009, 05:53:56 PM
It always looks suspiciously good on film.  I think there's a full-sized DC replica built somewhere in California.

May it exists only in CGI Land.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on January 28, 2009, 05:57:31 PM
Oh, right.  Sorry, I'm old.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: monkey! on January 28, 2009, 06:19:25 PM
Life is like a box of chocolates.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Cassander on January 28, 2009, 10:12:16 PM
Quote
Obama should be taking the time repute the Laffer-influenced Friedman-ite economists who have been fucking our economy. Maureen Dowd put it a bit vitriolically today, but the point was made

you just made me want to burn my eyelids closed.

anyway, the point i'm making about tax cuts isn't tax breaks or loopholes or all that shit.  simple income tax stuff that puts an extra $3,000-$20,000 in your wallet (depending, of course, on your income) that will immediately go out and get spent.  businesses are laying people off left and right because NO ONE IS BUYING ANYTHING.  plus, if you lighten the tax load on businesses (and you shouldn't read "business" as "GlobalMultiCorp, Inc"), they're going to find ways to fix their own little financial messes unless they're just fucked beyond repair.  job creation is great, but isn't job retention just as good?

also, this WPA comparison shit has to stop.  you think in today's world that any infrastructure project is going to be federally administered and they're just going to hire 100 unemployed fucks because they need to give them jobs?  or do you think they'll do what they've always done and contract it out to the best-connected or lowest bidder?  those companies aren't going to be hiring on tons of extra employees.  if they can, they'll make do with the resources they have.  i agree it needs to be done, but it's not going to save anyone from losing their house unless they're already working for a company that gets the job. 
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on January 29, 2009, 12:54:38 PM
Well the money to repair the Mall (and some, by the way, save the Jefferson Memorial from sinking) was cut from the stimulus.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: fajwat on January 29, 2009, 05:02:00 PM
...Obama should be taking the time repute the Laffer-influenced Friedman-ite economists who have been fucking our economy. Maureen Dowd put it a bit vitriolically today, but the point was made: the Republicans have been actively engaged in class warfare in favor of the rich for a long time.

I'm not sure, Matt.  Republicans engaged in "class warfare..for a long time" by not calling it class warfare.  I wonder if Dems would get real mileage out of being some kind of 100% in your face honesty-and-truth-wins-over-evil idealist and explaining everything all the time to "counter" every stupid asshole's argument?

Or, on the other side of the spectrum, will Obama's much quoted: "I won." have the right brawn?  Dems can ride the tide of: "FUCK YOU" to the Bush era for a while, perhaps. 

Republicans played every partisan tribalism game, every misdirection trick, and did everything except "explain" what you're calling class-warfare. 

Why should Dems hobble themselves to some juvenile abstraction of the truth?  People who know, know.  People who believe talk radio and the interwebnetz believe talk radio and the interwebnetz.

Dems are like the Microsoft of liberalism.  I'm hardly going to ask them to play fair against the republicans when they've always played dirty against the liberals such as myself.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Matt on January 29, 2009, 05:10:13 PM
It's not really that hard to explain to someone that the Republicans have been fucking you over; David Cross did it in about 2 minutes in a stand-up skit.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: fajwat on January 29, 2009, 05:20:25 PM
It's not really that hard to explain to someone that the Republicans have been fucking you over; David Cross did it in about 2 minutes in a stand-up skit.

That's perfect. Obama can just bring David Cross up to the white house podium for his next news conference.  For the Good of the nation.

But why the fuck?  Why?

And... most people think they're richer than they are.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Matt on January 29, 2009, 08:18:57 PM
I don't know what you're saying.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Nubbins on February 04, 2009, 01:27:35 PM
Nice... Obama introduces salary caps for executives who work for companies receiving federal aid.  Should have happened months ago, but better late than never.

Also, if you missed it, Blagojevich was on Letterman last night... Dave owned him.

part 1

part 2

part 3

part 4
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on February 05, 2009, 12:42:00 PM
We still keeping track?  Day 15!

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/02/04/obama-tally-day-15-a-small-win/

I think delaying digital TV is retarded.

http://tvdecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/house-votes-to-delay-switch-to-digital-tv/?hp

Come on, people.  God... We're turning into Canada, where it's always 1985.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Sirharles on February 05, 2009, 01:07:26 PM
Yea, this is ridiculous.  All for about 3% of the population. 
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: fajwat on February 09, 2009, 01:32:10 PM
Yea, this is ridiculous.  All for about 3% of the population. 

Like my mom.  I helped her set up her converter box only a month ago and she's still getting used to how to adjust the antenna with the unfamiliar signal quality feedback.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Reginald McGraw on February 10, 2009, 10:58:49 AM
I was going to be super-pissed if Obama's prime-time speech yesterday cut off part of 24.

Fortunately it did not!

Also...the stimulus package he was pushing just seems like a bad idea.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on February 12, 2009, 04:08:38 PM
Almost time, Cass:

Quote
a quiet bill was introduced by the House of Representatives earlier this week and could finally bring an end to a near 50-year U.S.-Cuba standstill. While everyone else in Washington has been deliberating on the stimulus package, Democratic Representative from Massachusetts, William Delahunt proposed the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act.

The proposed act hopes to end all travel restrictions for all U.S. citizens across the board. Some people still have concerns about the drastic effects this would have on travel to the still quite Communist country. In fact, the Cuban American National Foundation would like the bill to be amended to allow only Cuban exiles to visit the island whenever they wish to see family. The foundation wants to see restrictions to exist for American tourists until Cuba shows some indications of democratic reform.

President Obama has long been a proponent of alleviating the harsh ban on American travel to and from Cuba.

Regardless of the outcome, tourism in Cuba is hot compared to nearly all of the other travel destinations in the Caribbean and even in Latin America.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Tatertots on February 12, 2009, 04:28:27 PM
This is the perfect way to help break Communism's hold on Cuba, if you ask me.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Reginald McGraw on February 13, 2009, 10:44:30 AM
Agree.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on February 13, 2009, 10:48:33 AM
It'll finally help them modernize their cigar industry so they're no longer stuck in the early 20th century making a perfect product.  Same for coffee.  Plus Bacardi can repatriot all of their holdings, along with the mob and United Fruit...
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Cassander on February 13, 2009, 01:09:31 PM
and i can go dance!
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Matt on February 14, 2009, 03:03:58 AM
Who really believes Cuba had communism, again?
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on February 14, 2009, 07:03:33 AM
How about "transitional Marxist socialist state" with a dash of fascism? 
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: monkey! on February 15, 2009, 09:41:06 AM
And lots of sexy.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on February 17, 2009, 05:56:20 PM
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/02/obama-high-speed-railroad.php


Quote
More good news from that economic stimulus bill that's poised to pump some serious money into green projects across the country: a big chunk of the funding will be used to create a huge new railroad system. Now I know what you're thinking—either I'm reporting on the wrong major recession, or now Obama is just copying the New Deal line by line. Not so. This is the biggest investment in rail in US history—and it could seriously change the way Americans travel. Here's how.

The 8 Billion Dollar Railroad
The $8 billion investment in a high-speed rail system could effectively modernize much of the US railroads. And in the process, modernize the very concept of traveling by train as well—an idea of travel deemed antiquated by much of the nation. The only sector in which Amtrak makes an actual operating profit on running trains is in the Northeast, where larger cities are closer together than in other parts of the nation, and the primary infrastructure has been in place for decades.

Obama hopes to build upon that model by installing railroads to link cities in other parts of the nation—an effort he believes could help revitalize the Midwest. A faster rail service could relieve traffic congestion, conserve energy, prevent pollution, and offer greater accessibility for intercity travel. Which may be why it's a key part of Obama's vision for America's future—you may have heard him mention it a couple months back on the campaign trail.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Tatertots on February 17, 2009, 09:01:03 PM
Way freakin' cool. I'd love to see the U.S. have a modern rail infrastructure. Rail is a great way to travel in comfort over short to medium distances, provided you have a fast rail system with decent railcars, especially because there's so many parts of the country that are absolutely beautiful (i.e. devoid of any roads) that could host a rail line.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Nubbins on February 17, 2009, 09:04:17 PM
Considering how huge this country is, I say the more transportation infrastructure we have the better as far as I'm concerned.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on February 18, 2009, 06:38:24 AM
Just like the old days!  Then we can get off at towns like Black Rock and seek revenge.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Nubbins on February 18, 2009, 11:17:11 AM
It would be hilarious if this spawned a new generation of train robbers.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: monkey! on February 18, 2009, 11:21:35 AM
Mono-rail! Mono-rail! Mono-rail!
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: fajwat on February 26, 2009, 03:17:21 PM
I'm not saying this'll work, but I really hope it does.  Obama gets me wet.  I've seriously cried for joy at several news releases.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on February 26, 2009, 03:41:54 PM
We can crosspost that in the Obama Saturation thread!
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: fajwat on February 26, 2009, 04:05:22 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/18/news/companies/auto_bailout/

Quote from: cnn
Auto bailout tab could top $130 billion

GM and Chrysler say they need $21.6 billion more in loans. But that won't be enough to save Detroit. Here's a rundown of all the auto bailout proposals.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/02/obama-high-speed-railroad.php


Quote
The 8 Billion Dollar Railroad
The $8 billion investment in a high-speed rail system could effectively modernize much of the US railroads. And in the process, modernize the very concept of traveling by train as well—an idea of travel deemed antiquated by much of the nation. The only sector in which Amtrak makes an actual operating profit on running trains is in the Northeast, where larger cities are closer together than in other parts of the nation, and the primary infrastructure has been in place for decades.

Obama hopes to build upon that model by installing railroads to link cities in other parts of the nation—an effort he believes could help revitalize the Midwest. A faster rail service could relieve traffic congestion, conserve energy, prevent pollution, and offer greater accessibility for intercity travel. Which may be why it's a key part of Obama's vision for America's future—you may have heard him mention it a couple months back on the campaign trail.

This chick at my apartment exclaimed, "$8bil?  Hell, that's 10% of the auto bailout!"  To which I replied: "Ooh, snap!  Icebarn!"
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on February 26, 2009, 05:57:49 PM
And... The 2010 budget: http://news.aol.com/main/obama-presidency/article/obama-budget/358945

Quote
WASHINGTON (Feb. 26) - President Barack Obama unveiled a multi-trillion-dollar spending plan Thursday that would boost taxes on the wealthy, curtail Medicare, lay the groundwork for universal health care and leave a string of deficits dwarfing any in the nation's history.

Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 26, 2009, 06:07:34 PM
Do I get to subsidize gay sex?
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 26, 2009, 10:22:00 PM
This article is from Politico which means it's intentionally inflammatory and cynical. That said, I got my first real heavy whiff of "meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss" from it.

Quote
Class warfare returns to Washington

President Barack Obama has spent months recasting Democratic goals on climate change and health care reform from liberal-leaning moral imperatives to hard-core economic necessities.

But when it comes to paying for them, Obama’s creative juices seemed to run dry as he turned Thursday to his party’s most predictable revenue enhancer: taxing the wealthy.

The result: an instant revival of an old and predictable Washington debate.

“This budget makes clear that the era of Big Government is back, and Democrats want you to pay for it,” said House Republican leader John A. Boehner.

And right on cue, Obama defended his $1.3 trillion in tax hikes over 10 years with a little class warfare.

“I know that this will not always sit well with the special interests and their lobbyists here in Washington, who think our budget and tax system is just fine as it is. No wonder — it works for them,” the president said. “I work for the American people, and I’m determined to bring the change that the people voted for last November.”

The exchanges beamed from microphones at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue offered reminders of how fresh Obama’s gains are and how fleeting they could become if he loses the aura of bringing a new style of leadership to the White House.

Thus far, the president has managed fairly successfully to use fresh rhetoric to produce a makeover of what is essentially an old Democratic agenda.

In his Tuesday night address to the nation, the president didn’t pitch expanding health coverage to all Americans as the duty of a great and wealthy society, as most Democrats have done for more than a decade.

Rather, he argued that containing health care costs is essential to economic recovery, observed Rebecca Blank, a domestic policy expert at the Brookings Institution. Expanding health coverage to everyone is simply an integral part of that goal, the president suggested.

On energy, Blank noted, the president touted investment in alternative fuels and energy technology as the next, best chance to spur a big wave of new job creation.

The well-worn Democratic mantra of reducing global warming was offered as a positive byproduct of that more tangible and urgent objective.

Those shifts in emphasis make the case for both programs that have long been on the party’s wish lists more compelling and relevant.

But no amount of spin or recalibration could fuzz up the flashback to previous Democratic administration’s fiscal policy when Obama unveiled his spending plan.

What is different this time, however, are the stakes.

Most economists now say the nation’s economy is in the worst shape since the Great Depression. Striking the right balance on tax policy could help a recovery along. A miss could thwart it by driving money out of the market.

The precariousness of the situation wasn’t lost on the White House’s new economic team.

Obama ran on a promise to repeal of President Bush’s income tax cut for wealthy earners to 36 percent from 39.6 percent before it expires in 2010.

But as the financial system collapsed last fall, he hedged on the pledge, saying tax hikes during a recession may not be a wise idea since it could affect job growth.

Congressional Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, leaned on the White House to move quickly and repeal the Bush tax cuts.

But, as it turns out, Obama’s budget keeps those tax cuts in place through 2010, a period in which many economists and the president hope a recovery will arrive.

Some economists argue that the anticipation of a return to higher tax rates may be enough to thwart critical investments and purchases.

For instance, the White House has been working for months to get the nation’s banks to begin lending again and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner recently announced a new government program aimed at getting loans to small business and to car and house buyers.

And who are the people out there today with the cash — and confidence — to spend? Most often they are people and families with earnings ranked in the top echelons and who will be subject to the Obama tax hike.

In addition, the spending plan includes other tax hikes that will take effect sooner and could also retard the impact of recovery programs.

One proposal calls for new taxes on hedge fund operators. But those are the very people that Treasury Department is likely to try recruit to buy up some of the “toxic assets” on bank balances.

Finally, the redistribution of wealth featured in Obama’s budget — it imposes higher taxes on wealthy households to offset tax breaks for working class families — could undercut the president’s attempts to rally a broad range of interest groups to back his policy reforms.

“It’s increasingly beginning to look like we’ve all been invited to the dinner, but some of us are showing up as the main course and others are the invited guests,” said Martin Regalia, the chief economist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has supported Obama’s economic recovery programs.

The timing and scale of the tax hikes ultimately could work in Obama’s favor. If the new tax revenue hits the federal coffers at the same time a recovery is underway, it could significantly improve the nation’s economic and budget outlook.

In addition, today’s politics lower the risks that Obama and his Democratic colleagues will take a big hit from a classic “tax-and-spending” tarring by the Republicans.

Bush’s tax cuts were passed at a time when housing values were still rising and ordinary Americans didn’t reject out of hand a proposal to shift their social security benefits to a stock plan.

Today, the excesses of Wall Street are stoking a populist backlash against a gilded class that seems even more remote and unattainable as ever to the working class.

In defending the hikes, the White House has also noted that they are coupled with tax cuts for most Americans and a repeal of the Bush income tax breaks will lead to a tax rate equal to the Clinton era — when the economy seemed to be doing pretty well.

“We are asking those who, for quite some time, have shared in the benefits of previous tax cuts to give a little bit more,” said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on February 26, 2009, 10:25:12 PM
I got my first real heavy whiff of "meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss" from it.


I've had that for a month.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Matt on March 03, 2009, 11:38:06 AM
Politico sucks and is full of right-wing talking heads.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Reginald McGraw on March 03, 2009, 04:39:12 PM
Politico sucks and is full of right-wing talking heads.

Really?  Why do you think it sucks?
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Matt on March 03, 2009, 11:52:21 PM
The latter part of my sentence explained the former.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: monkey! on March 04, 2009, 06:17:07 AM
The latter part of my sentence explained the former.

You talk very right-wing left-wing sometimes.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Nubbins on March 04, 2009, 10:48:06 AM
hahahahaaaaaaaa
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Reginald McGraw on March 04, 2009, 11:02:36 AM
The latter part of my sentence explained the former.

That's what I figured you thought.  I was surprised you didn't just say "because" instead of "and", so I thought you might have other thoughts as to why it sucked.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on March 04, 2009, 04:08:28 PM
Quote
Reports of a secret offer from the Obama Administration to the Russian government over the U.S. planned missile defense system in Europe surfaced yesterday. The reports said that soon after the inauguration, President Obama directed that a letter be hand delivered to the Kremlin offering a quid pro quo of sorts. In exchange for Russian help in halting Iran's nuclear programs, the president would scale back the missile shield, forgoing planned base installations in Poland and the Czech Republic. One official with knowledge of the deal was quoted as saying that removal of the Iranian threat makes the missile shield a less urgent priority.

Asked about the reports yesterday during his audience with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama appeared to give conflicting answers. The president denied that the letter contained a proposed trade-off, but added that the elimination of the Iranian nuclear programs, "reduces the pressure for, or the need for, a misslie defense system." The president's answer confirms the assessment of the diplomat quoted in the report about the letter. Obama called the assessment, "a statement of fact." But it is unclear just why the Admininstration would feel the need to make that particular statement of fact to Moscow unless it was in the context of a trade. Obama said that his Administration's position on the missile shield is that the system is defensive and intended for use against rogue nations that may threaten Europe or the United States, not an offensive system aimed at Russia. The president could have made that point without discussing the Iranian nuclear programs, so it seems likely that some kind of offer was made in return for Russia's cooperation.

President Obama and Vice President Biden have said that they want to "press the reset button" on relations with Russia, which soured in recent years over Russia's assisstance to Iran and its skepticism over the missile shield system. If the Administration did offer to scuttle the missile shield, however, it would mark a dangerous acquiensence to Russia's demands. The missile shield system would protect Europe and the United States not just from Iran, but from missiles launched by al-Qaeda or Pakistan, if the latter falls into extremist hands. And it would serve as a check against an increasingly belligerent Russia. The Administration should stand behind the missile defense system for the good of America's allies in Europe, and the interests of U.S. national security.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 04, 2009, 04:17:15 PM
And the Cold War warms up again . . .
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Nubbins on March 04, 2009, 04:30:51 PM
I was listening to some stuff about this on my way home from work last night... apparently Russia is downplaying the concerns of the US over Iran having nuclear capabilities.  This is following an announcement less than two weeks ago that said Iran has far more enriched Uranium than was previously thought.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: monkey! on March 04, 2009, 09:14:10 PM
And the Cold War warms up again . . .

Cunty cunts are cunty cunts, RC.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on March 11, 2009, 04:53:52 PM
See?  The stimulus package does work!  It goes towards eliminating the last vestige of the 1975 Metric Act!

Thank god Arizona is using this money on perfectly functional road signs instead of the public!


Quote
I-19 losing kilometer signs
By Philip Franchine
Published: Friday, March 6, 2009 7:28 PM MST
The Sahuarita Sun

After nearly three decades of complaints from confused motorists, the Interstate 19 kilometer markers will soon be pulled out of the ground for good.

The state transportation board on Tuesday approved $1.5 million to replace the signs on the entire 100-kilometer — or 63-mile — stretch of I-19 from Nogales to Tucson. The funding is part of the federal stimulus package, which provides $521 million to the state for roads and bridges.

The kilometer signs were placed in 1980 as part of a federal experiment with metric conversion, and over the years proved about as popular as the metric system itself. I-19 is the only U.S. interstate marked in metric.

The Arizona Department of Transportation eventually placed mile markers along I-19 in 1998, but set them at a 90-degree angle to the highway so motorists couldn’t easily see them and be confused by the extra markings. Those signs now will be turned so north- and south-bound motorists can see them. The big freeway signs listing distances also will switch over as part of the project, which will undergo a federal review in the next four months and then must be put out for bid.

The interstate starts at the U.S.-Mexico border and is part of the Canamex corridor intended to link Mexico, the U.S. and Canada along a trade route. For years, traffic engineers have heard from drivers and others who are confused by the metric signs, ADOT Tucson District Engineer Greg Gentsch said.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 11, 2009, 08:49:39 PM
Obama bores me.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Cassander on March 11, 2009, 08:54:17 PM
it was a shovel ready job!
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on March 11, 2009, 08:55:45 PM
The stimulus bill bores me.  What, is 99% of it earmarked to give every single Congressman a circular driveway at each of their three houses?  Because that's how I read it.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 11, 2009, 08:56:16 PM
I thought Obama was going to fight lions and shit.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on March 11, 2009, 08:58:34 PM
He did.  He lost.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 11, 2009, 09:00:52 PM
Wow. You got all metaphorical on me.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on March 11, 2009, 09:02:49 PM
Seriously, though, I'm surprised that I'm surprised, because I'm not surprised.  Know what I mean?
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 11, 2009, 09:05:10 PM
Actually I do.

Which I want to see him wrestle a bear.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: monkey! on March 12, 2009, 02:05:46 PM
Actually I do.

Which I want to see him wrestle a bear.

I want to see him in a Huggy-Bear outfit.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Matt on March 16, 2009, 05:39:10 PM
Putin's the only world leader who's fighting animals these days.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on March 16, 2009, 06:59:13 PM
I think we could do with more nude bear wrestling from world leaders.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Nubbins on March 16, 2009, 07:45:05 PM
Congress should just go to a system of cage fights in order to pass bills and laws.  They should be allowed to use performance enhancing drugs as well.  And folding chairs.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on March 16, 2009, 07:57:45 PM
Congress should just go to a system of cage fights in order to pass bills and laws.  They should be allowed to use performance enhancing drugs as well.  And folding chairs.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1161398/ready_to_rumble_greatest_fistfights.html
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Nubbins on March 17, 2009, 12:15:21 PM
Man, you'd think after a while they'd quit letting Congressmen have canes.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on March 17, 2009, 12:26:26 PM
Are we following this shit with AIG?  The 100 days comes crashing down around him...

Quote
President Obama's apparent inability to block executive bonuses at insurance giant AIG has dealt a sharp blow to his young administration and is threatening to derail both public and congressional support for his ambitious political agenda.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/16/AR2009031600640.html?hpid=topnews

Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: monkey! on March 17, 2009, 12:29:14 PM
I think we could do with more nude bear wrestling from world leaders.

I thought Putin made the bears dance on hot plates.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Nubbins on March 17, 2009, 02:44:17 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/17/cafferty.obama/index.html

Quote
NEW YORK (CNN) -- What a welcome change to feel like someone is running the country instead of running it into the ground.

President Obama has done more in eight weeks than George W. Bush did in eight years -- unless you include starting a couple of wars.

While the armchair quarterbacks second guess the new president, he gets up every day and does things, lots of things.

Whether it's creating commissions for women and girls, ordering the investigation of President Bush's use of signing statements, or jamming a huge stimulus package through Congress, the man is working his tail off. And he seems to be loving every minute of it. It's almost as though our president was born to do exactly what he's doing. He's leading, and boy, is that refreshing.

I remember many times when Bush was in office wondering who the hell was running the country. Then he would appear somewhere in front of a handpicked audience to utter some banalities or say something utterly stupid and I would be reminded. I don't miss him.

That's not to say President Obama hasn't stubbed his toe here and there. Signing that omnibus spending bill with all those earmarks in it after campaigning so hard against pork was probably a mistake. The opportunity was right there to send that bill back to Congress with a note that read, "I told you I am against earmarks and I meant it. Now do it over and send me something clean." Nancy Pelosi's head would have probably exploded, but the American people would have been ready to crown him king.

There are serious questions about whether Tim Geithner has what it takes to solve the banking crisis. Either nationalize the big ones in trouble or let them fail. It doesn't seem that just continuing to hand them money is working.

Better background checks on some of his appointees would have saved him some embarrassment. There's no excuse for asking someone like Tom Daschle with his problems to do anything.

But the point, I guess, is this: President Obama is attacking our country's problems on several fronts. He's got ambitious ideas on how to solve them, and he communicates a sense of calm and confidence to the rest of us as he goes about his business. Will all his ideas work? Of course not. But if you throw enough stuff at the wall, some of it will stick.

And at least I don't go to bed at night worried that I'll wake up in the morning to find out we're about to invade someone.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on March 18, 2009, 10:36:12 AM
Ha!

(https://greatsociety.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.greatsociety.org%2Fuploads%2Fuserfiles%2F3%2Fdebtstar.jpg&hash=c6d0a5211f0754a6ba7ecef0f2a4f145)
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Sirharles on March 18, 2009, 11:33:31 AM
Wow!!!  That is great!
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Nubbins on March 18, 2009, 02:53:49 PM
Quote
Federal spending stood at about $1.9 trillion in 2000, when Democrat Bill Clinton ended his presidency. In his final year in office, Bush proposed to spend $3.1 trillion for fiscal year 2009. President Obama's budget proposal for fiscal 2010 is $3.6 trillion.

Entire article here: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/zelizer.small.government/index.html
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: monkey! on March 18, 2009, 02:58:18 PM
Inflation?
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Reginald McGraw on March 18, 2009, 03:05:27 PM
2-3%
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Nubbins on March 18, 2009, 03:32:38 PM
Quote
The economy is in shambles, American International Group's CEO is being grilled on the Hill, and the president is heading to California -- but on WhiteHouse.gov, the top story of the day is President Obama's NCAA Tournament bracket.

The president filled out his bracket yesterday, and Andy Katz of ESPN was there as Obama explained his choices in detail. The first round of games begins tomorrow, and Obama told Katz that "chances are high" that he'll check in on them during his busy day. The president will be overseas as the Final Four weekend commences April 4-6, but he won't let that deter him either, he told Katz.

"We're going to be watching it, but it will probably be 2 in the morning where we are," Obama said. "I'm not going to be able to watch any game the whole way through, but we're going to be checking the scores."

The official line on his picks from the White House: "President Obama played it safe for the most part, picking Louisville (1 seed), Memphis (2), Pittsburgh (1), and North Carolina (1) as his Final Four to meet in Detroit. After some deliberation, the First Hoops Fan is calling the Tar Heels as this year's national champs."

Obama's brackets... linked because it's huge: http://i39.tinypic.com/16ifcwg.jpg
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on March 19, 2009, 10:30:48 AM
Haha!  AAAAAHHHHH!!!!   :banghead:

Quote
- Troubled mortgage giant Fannie Mae planned to pay four top executives retention bonuses ranging from $470,000 to $611,000, according to a February SEC filing.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Nubbins on March 19, 2009, 10:57:28 AM
What the fuck, people... don't any of these mega corporations have any common sense?
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on March 19, 2009, 11:41:33 AM
I love the Obama's Brackets thing.  All the Obama Freaks here at work are like:  SEE?!?!  HE'S A MAN OF THE PEOPLE!!!! *jizz*

But some people are going hmmm.  And I like to hear those Hmmms.  Get rid of this Glory Glory stuff and face reality for a change.

Maybe it's time to take down the shrines and eternal candles you cultist freaks.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Nubbins on March 19, 2009, 12:15:59 PM
Then on the other side of the aisle, you have moral outrage that Obama would even think to remove himself from the economic crisis for long enough to fill out an NCAA bracket.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 19, 2009, 12:48:09 PM
ESPN was saying/joking yesterday about how his advisors probably made his picks for him.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Tatertots on March 19, 2009, 01:30:10 PM
Also: Citigroup is spending $10 million to renovate the CEO's office.

This is the guy who said about the crisis he "gets it" and is going to make sure Citigroup "gets it" too.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Cassander on March 19, 2009, 09:52:12 PM
ok, so am i the only one who's not outraged about the AIG bonuses thing?  i mean, 165 mil is kind of a drop in the bucket.  plus AIG is really freaking huge.  the department that fucked up (the investment and securities insurance branch that backed horrible loans) has no bearing on the other departments that were all making a profit.  even in a horrible economic climate like this, you shouldn't punish some guys for what their co-workers are doing, right? 
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on March 20, 2009, 12:59:42 AM
You are.  The rest of GS supports the AIG bonuses.  And, especially, the 10 million remodeling of the Fannie Mae offices.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Tatertots on March 20, 2009, 01:17:04 AM
They just got taxed at 90%, though! Scary precedent, but it's still kind of funny.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on March 20, 2009, 01:18:43 AM
It's a good precedent, considering that we have now reached the point where any corporate executive is allowed to fuck a dead two year old on national prime time TV and be forgiven.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Tatertots on March 20, 2009, 02:23:52 AM
I mean the "exorbitant taxes to recover money the government feels it is owed" thing.

I don't care about the rich. Tax them to hell. Whatever. I just hope it doesn't ever trickle down to regular people. I mean, it never would, right?
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Cassander on March 20, 2009, 02:43:55 AM
not as long as navy SEALs are there to chopper down and slaughter rich people on their boats!
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on March 20, 2009, 02:51:57 AM
Man, I was waiting for that from the moment you logged on.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Cassander on March 20, 2009, 02:53:43 AM
i want some magic hat #9 RIGHT NOW
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on March 20, 2009, 02:55:09 AM
It's full of Apricot Love!
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Reginald McGraw on March 20, 2009, 09:54:44 AM
I mean the "exorbitant taxes to recover money the government feels it is owed" thing.

I don't care about the rich. Tax them to hell. Whatever. I just hope it doesn't ever trickle down to regular people. I mean, it never would, right?

No way, man.  The government is our friend!  They never do anything questionable or expand their power in unconstitutional ways.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Nubbins on March 20, 2009, 11:47:08 AM
The Prez on Leno last night... great interview

http://www.nbc.com/The_Tonight_Show_with_Jay_Leno/video/clips/president-obama-319/1067541/
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: monkey! on March 20, 2009, 01:39:25 PM
Did you know that Obama is black?
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on April 23, 2009, 12:28:36 PM
So have we come to the end of the 100 days yet?

Quote
Obama's Disapproval Rating Reaches New High
By Mark Impomeni
Apr 22nd 2009 8:00PM



President Barack Obama's approval ratings have declined steadily since he took office three months ago. A new poll out today shows that as the president approaches his 100th day in office, the percentage of Americans that disapprove of his job performance has reached a new high. Rasmussen Reports' Daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows Obama with a 54-46 percent approval rating. The approval and disapproval numbers represent record low approval and record high disapproval for the president, respectively. Moreover, the spread between respondents that strongly approve or disapprove of Obama's job performance stands at just 34-32.

Rasmussen's results confirm the result of a Pew Research Center for the People and the Press poll from earlier this month. That poll showed that Obama had the most polarized poll results of any president in forty years with 88 percent of Democrats viewing his performance favorable and just 27 percent of Republicans agreeing. Overall, Pew found the president's job approval at 59 percent, slightly higher than the 54 percent reported by Rasmussen.

In other polling news, Rasmussen also reported that the generic Congressional ballot is tied at 39-39 percent between Republicans and Democrats. This is the second straight week that respondents have indicated no preference between the two parties in the 2010 Congressional elections. Rasmussen's Congressional ballot has been trending toward Republicans since Election Day, but Republicans have yet to overtake majority Democrats.

It was inevitable that President Obama's poll numbers would come down once the euphoria of the campaign died down and he began the tough work of governing. Obama has always been personally popular, but the public is less enthusiastic with his proposals. The longer he is in office, it seems, the more Americans are beginning to identify him with the policies he is proposing, and not the grand themes and generalizations of the presidential campaign. It will be interesting to see whether President Obama modifies his positions in response to his poll numbers, should they continue to fall.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Nubbins on April 23, 2009, 01:11:34 PM
I, for one, am still totally gay for Obama.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 23, 2009, 02:47:33 PM
I am less gay, but still gay enough . . .
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: monkey! on April 25, 2009, 03:25:13 AM
Gay.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Nubbins on April 27, 2009, 01:12:11 PM
Well, I think this is day 100.... or pretty damn close to it anyway.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on April 27, 2009, 01:13:10 PM
Swine Flu!
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Cassander on April 28, 2009, 10:08:38 AM
swine flu was an inherited problem!  we're working hard on it!
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Nubbins on April 28, 2009, 12:04:56 PM
Pigs are filthy animals. I don't eat filthy animals.

Yeah, but bacon tastes good. Pork chops taste good.

Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know 'cause I wouldn't eat the filthy motherfucker. Pigs sleep and root in shit. That's a filthy animal. I ain't eatin' nothing that ain't got sense enough to disregard its own feces.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Nubbins on April 28, 2009, 12:36:13 PM
(https://greatsociety.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi39.tinypic.com%2Fwsljl3.jpg&hash=777f57ea7fd2a88d18a8dee7cc289e23)
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on April 28, 2009, 12:49:16 PM
Is that Obama before he turned black?
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on April 28, 2009, 12:56:52 PM
(https://greatsociety.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.greatsociety.org%2Fuploads%2Fuserfiles%2F3%2Fhomerpig.jpg&hash=a8e9bbc990cdf618ec984198b25af0af)
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Nubbins on April 28, 2009, 12:59:49 PM
hahahahaa :D
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 28, 2009, 01:14:07 PM
I have to go watch Pulp Fiction now.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on April 28, 2009, 02:05:18 PM
Now this is a good way to end the 100 days...

Quote
    Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and announced today that he will run in 2010 as a Democrat, according to a statement he released this morning.

    Specter's decision would give Democrats a 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate assuming Democrat Al Franken is eventually sworn in as the next Senator from Minnesota. (Former Sen. Norm Coleman is appealing Franken's victory in the state Supreme Court.)

    "I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary," said Specter in a statement. "I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election."

    He added: "Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans."
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Nubbins on April 28, 2009, 02:16:05 PM
Fuck yeah... I just heard this news.  Incredible.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Tatertots on April 28, 2009, 02:44:07 PM
Man, I wonder if there's going to be any others.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on April 28, 2009, 03:40:16 PM
Is the GOP really dying?  This is pretty cool...
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 28, 2009, 04:34:32 PM
Did the Dems die in 1980?
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on April 28, 2009, 04:39:59 PM
Nope.  They lost the majority in the Senate, but only by 12 seats (and they regained most of those in 84 and were again in the majority in 1986, with Uncle Byrd in control), and they took a majority in the House, and held that majority up until the 94 Newt Gingrich backlash.

This is why Reagan's second term is nothing but Iran-Contra embarrassment.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 28, 2009, 04:41:24 PM
I think that's your answer.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: Tatertots on April 28, 2009, 06:24:14 PM
http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/index.php/site/comments/arlen_specter_to_join_the_wu_tang_clan_042809/

Quote
This afternoon Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) announced he is joining the Wu-Tang Clan, a prominent, loosely organized group of hardcore rappers that first formed in the early '90s.
At a press conference with all 9 original members, including the RZA, GZA (pronounced "Rizza" and "Jizza") and Method Man, a visibly disoriented Specter read from a prepared statement:

"My life had got no better, same damn 'Lo sweater. Times is rough and tough like leather," said the senior senator of his 29-year membership with the GOP. "I figured out I went the wrong route. So I got with a sick tight clique and went all out."

After Spectar finished reading his statement, the members of the Wu took questions.

"We're just happy to have Mr. Specter on board," said Ghostface Killa, who because of the room's low-lying cloud of smoke was barely visible. "When he contacted my office this morning, what else could I tell him but 'Welcome Aboard!"

"It's hard to argue with 29 years of Senate experience," said the ghost of Ol' Dirty Bastard. "In this economy, even a multi-platinum, grammy-nominated super group needs as much help as possible."

The press conference ended ubruptly after Inspectah Deck lambasted the press corps for its overreporting of Somali pirates, Obama's new dog, and the Swine Flu "pandemic" in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 28, 2009, 07:36:25 PM
Fantastic!
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on April 30, 2009, 04:50:39 PM
I have to go watch Pulp Fiction now.

Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 30, 2009, 04:53:24 PM
Now I REALLY have to watch Pulp Fiction again.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on April 30, 2009, 04:58:37 PM
Now I REALLY have to watch Pulp Fiction again.

That little girl has seen it too many times, I think.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 30, 2009, 05:14:33 PM
I just watched the whole restaurant scene on YouTube.
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: nacho on April 30, 2009, 05:42:25 PM
Criminal!
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 30, 2009, 05:43:06 PM
I own a VHS tape . . .
Title: Re: The First 100 Days
Post by: monkey! on May 31, 2009, 11:12:47 AM
I own a VHS tape . . .

Dinosaur.