Obama and Transparency: No More Need for Limbaugh

[bytor2112]

Whoah. For a second there I thought I had accidentally gone to rr-bb instead of lds.net.

...Weird.

rr-bb???

[talisyn]

its nice to meet you guys too.....

lol nice to meet you too

[FunkyTown]

On a slightly related tangent:

Obama gets schooled in Foreign Policy

Apparently, it is not possible to accomplish all America's foreign policy objectives just by talking and NotBeingBush™.

But hey, at least we don't need to worry about Iran enriching uranium anymore. (They have all they need.)

This is an interesting point. Anybody who has followed foreign policy knows this is not the first time this has happened. In fact, Israel had to step in when Iraq had this potential, too.

Interesting times we live in. If Israel bombs Iran, they can count on every nation that surrounds them going to war with them. Prophetic, one might say.

[miztrniceguy]

Rabble Rousers?

[Misshalfway]

Accountability???? Now there is a concept.

[lilered]

Just to kind of get back on track. In my simple minded way of viewing things, it seems to me that the premise that a country can borrow its way out of debt is faulted from the start. Common sense would dictate that if ones bills are unable to be paid on time in full, then interest is accumulated. Thus more is required to be paid by the debtor than originally budgeted. Left unchecked this condition will only get worse. What has to happen is 1). spending is reduced 2) additonal source of money is found 3) combination of both is applied.

However, what our Federal Government continues to do is rather than address the root causes of the problem and fix it. Would rather postpone the bitter pill of drastic spending cuts, instead borrow from the future by printing more money and throw it at the problem, continue to pay higher interest payments for borrowed money and continue to spend wildly on whatever it pleases. Keeping in mind that most of the same Congressional members are still in office today that participated in causing the problem originally. Without any accountability whatsoever thus far. Is this insantity or what?

We can blame Clinton, Bush or whomever, but remember the Congress alone is responsible for approving or disapproving budgets and expenditures of tax dollars, not the President.

We are fast as a nation losing our desire for individual self reliance and raising our dependancy on the Federal Government for our future happiness and well-being.

[FunkyTown]

It does seem ridiculous, Red. I don't get why everyone -but- the government can see this coming. o.O

[bytor2112]

It does seem ridiculous, Red. I don't get why everyone -but- the government can see this coming. o.O

I think the same thing.....I think they see it but don't care??

[lilered]

It does seem ridiculous, Red. I don't get why everyone -but- the government can see this coming. o.O

I suspect that the conditions that caused this debacle have been a work for quite some time. The reason I believe that is the massive amount of dollars that is being thrown at the problem to try to stop the hemmoraging. To expound on this a bit further.

It is my understanding concerning the housing and banking issues, that several years back our government in its effort to obtain afforable housing for disenfranchized voters put in place certain requirements and incentives for lending institutions to qualify borrowers. They in affect pressured the Banking and lending instituions to lend housing money to financially unqualified purchasers.

The old way was that if one desired to purchase a new home, they were required to have 15 - 25% down first to qualify for a loan, plus have good credit and be employed and financially solvent to afford the home.

However, the rules were changed to allow lower income folks to qualify by suspending the normal down payment and in fact were allowed to purchase the home without benefit of a downpayment as well as many cases with poor or no credit and in some cases no job.

In addition thousands of loans were written that gave a very favorable low interest rate for a few years, but then the interest rate was raised to a much higher one for the remainder of the loan or a balloon payment was required.

The assumption was that these folks deserved a part of the American dream of owing a house etc. and they would be better citizens and voters etc. In other words the government would help them achieve a raise in their standard of living.

The assumption was that the real estate market would always grow, they would be able to always make their payments, etc. and real estate would always grow in value. In addition, the lending institutions were lending in excess of the assessed value of the home which allowed many borrowers to also furnish the home or purchase a new car etc. with the housing loan.

All was well until these same unqualified home purchasers couldn't continue to make their payments either because they lost their job, or they couldn;t make the increased interest payment or refinance the home to get rid of the due balloon payment. The bubble burst and the banks and lending instituions were left holding the bank for thousands of homes.

Keep in mind that those that were responsible for creating the problem are still in Congress and working feverishly to point the finger at everyone but themselves.

[Elphaba]

Even though you wrote this at the end of you post, I have moved it to the top, because it is the perfect example of what I keep repeating: relying on the likes of Limbaugh is relying on people who are entertainers; people who are not interested in the truth when they spout one screed after another about the evils of Obama. For example:

Ibama Administration has chosen *not* to make transcripts of press briefings available on the White House website.

This is absolutely preposterous, and proves my point.

What is the source for this ridiculous accusation? Is it Limbaugh? Hannity? Volokh? Because you obviously didn’t do any fact checking of your own, nor did it apparently occur to you to go to the source to discover if it is true or not.

Of course the Obama White House is posting the transcripts of its press briefings on the http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing_room/PressBriefings/ website. I can’t even begin to explain how insipid that accusation is.

Also, since you brought up Bush, here are some interesting factoids:

During President Bush’s eight years in office, his administration gave a total of 212 news conferences; that averages out to about two briefings per month. Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/19/politics/bush_legacy/main4735360.shtml

During President Obama’s first month in office, his office has given 24 press briefings in the first month. Source: http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/pressconference

The next time you automatically assume your extreme anti-Obama source is correct, understand it does not care about the truth: it cares about screeds and shouting and hating and being completely obtuse--because it can.

This goes or the extreme pro-Obama sources as well, such as the likes of Keith Olbermann, though I think he is correct as often as he is not. But I know better than to rely on him as a source of proof. I might rely on him to bring up issues, but I would never just post his information as if it were verified and accurate. That would be lunacy.

That does not mean these people are never right; of course there are times when they are. But confirm and verify it for yourself. Use your critical thinking skills. If you had, I’m sure it would have occurred to you to go to the White House site, the source, just to make sure your source wasn’t, once again, bloviating nonsense to entertain the masses.

To the rest of your post:

I congratulate you for having read the bill in its entirety.

Thank you, although I did clarify that I had scanned most of it, and closely read the parts I knew I would understand.

Why couldn't I look it up at least 48 hours before it passed, as the Congressional leadership promised would be the case with all bills to go before this Congress?

This is a very good point, and both liberals and conservatives are unhappy about this, and Obama is going to have to address this if he wants to maintain credibility.

But, for crying out loud, the bill is online, and that is a watershed, both in transparency, and in technology! And Obama has not made this transparancy possible--technology has! But Obama understands this, as demonstrated by his technologically flawless campaign.

He is not an idiot, and he knows he is going to have to do better in the future, particularly with the life-cycle of Congressional bills. And I have no doubt he will--as he has no choice.

But of you canot see that magnitude of having even just the bill online, as a start, where every and any American who cares to read it can, then you're just being stubborn to be stubborn.

So yes, that is transparency, and it is a turning-point in the country's politics from which we will never turn back.

Oh, and by the way, you might want to take a look at this little analysis of Obama's "transparency".

First, relying on the Volkoh Conspiracy for accurate information is as ridiculous as relying on The Huffington Post. One is extremely anti-Obama, the other extremely pro-Obama. I've already explained above the dangers of relying on them as sources.

Additionally, did you actually read the article? It was not nearly as critical o Obama as I thought it was going to be. In fact, it admitted:

Campaign promises notwithstanding, the Administration is likely to stumble along for a bit in this area. But as an advocate of greater government transparency, this is an area in which I hope the Administration regains its footing.

What part of this says Obama has no, nor will he provide any, transparency?

Additionally, I knew about some of those actions the administration took, didn’t you?

If this is what you find so abhorrent, then you are just being petulant with your ideology. Even I, who despise Bush, gave him close to two years to prove himself. That was because he because president in one of the most intense periods in our history. But, eventually, I lost complete faith in him, and in fact, abhorr the man. But two years gives me the right.

Given the country's implosions Bush has left Obama to deal with, one month does not.

Elphaba

[Palerider]

I must confess....I listened to Limbaugh again...today.....gotta love it....

[Elphaba]

Even though you wrote this at the end of you post, I have moved it to the top, because it is the perfect example of what I keep repeating: relying on the likes of Limbaugh is relying on people who are entertainers; people who are not interested in the truth when they spout one screed after another about the evils of Obama. For example

Originally Posted by Just_A_Guy Ibama Administration has chosen *not* to make transcripts of press briefings available on the White House website.

This is preposterous. What is your source for this ridiculous accusation? Is it the likes of Limbaugh? Hannity? Volokh? Someone else? Because if you had done some fact checking of your own, you would have discovered:

Of course the Obama White House is posting the transcripts of its press briefings on the White House website.

I am really hesitant to be overly critical of your fact-checking skills, because I realize I have no idea where you found this gem. Maybe it was a more credible source than I am aware of. I’ll wait until you tell me. But it is only common sense the press briefings would be on the website. Did that really not occur to you?

Actually, I find it doesn’t occur to a lot of the vehemently anti-Obama people. So, perhaps the thing speaks for itself, eh?

Also, since you brought up Bush, here are some interesting factoids:

During President Bush’s eight years in office, his administration gave a total of 212 news conferences; that averages out to about two briefings per month. Source: CBS News: Bush Statistics

During President Obama’s first month in office, his administration has given 24 press briefings. Source: link listed above.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To the rest of your post:

I congratulate you for having read the bill in its entirety.

Thank you, although I did clarify that I had scanned most of it, and closely read the parts I knew I would understand.

Why couldn't I look it up at least 48 hours before it passed, as the Congressional leadership promised would be the case with all bills to go before this Congress?

This is an excellent, and warranted, question, and both liberals and conservatives are extremely unhappy about this. Obama is going to have to address this if he wants to maintain credibility.

But, for crying out loud, the bill is online, and that is a watershed, both in transparency, and technology!

It is not Obama who has not made this transparency possible--technology has. But Obama understands this, as demonstrated by his technologically flawless campaign.

And he knows the magnitude of living in America, during a time when all of the pieces come together so that a literate population has the technology to bring a Congressional Bill into their homes to read it, is astonishing.

So yes, there is transparency, and it is a turning-point in the country's politics from which we will never turn back, and that is a watershed.

Oh, and by the way, you might want to take a look at this little analysis

of Obama's "transparency".

First, relying on the Volokh Conspiracy for accurate information is as ridiculous as relying on The Huffington Post. They are both fairly polarized, one pro-, the other anti-Obama. They’re not the worst of the lot, and many contributors are willing to acknowledge the issues, like the authors in The Huffington Post who are very upset about not being able to see the bill before it passed--just like you, and I, are.

However, did you actually read “this little analysis”? It was not nearly as critical to Obama as you intimated. In fact, it admitted:

Campaign promises notwithstanding, the Administration is likely to stumble along for a bit in this area. But as an advocate of greater government transparency, this is an area in which I hope the Administration regains its footing.

What part of this says Obama has no, nor will he provide any, transparency?

Additionally, I already knew about some of those actions the administration took, didn’t you? It's not as if the information was purposely hidden.

If this is what you find so abhorrent, then you are just being petulant with your ideology.

Even I, who despise Bush, gave him close to two years to prove himself. That was because he was our president in one of the most intense and confusing periods in our history.

Don’t get me wrong--he never had my full support. Even I knew the difference between the Sunni and the Shi’ia, and the horrors that would be unleashed between the two if we invaded. But I still put my objections aside, and gave him an honest chance.

In fact, I can honestly say that if it turned out the war was warranted, I would have supported Bush in it; but it wasn't, and after two years, I feel I was justified to judge him a failed president.

Given the country's various implosions that Bush has left Obama to resolve, none of which can be fixed in a quick time frame, one month in office does not accord anyone such justification.

Elphaba

Edited February 21, 2009 by Elphaba

[Palerider]

that mean Pres Bush....not giving news conferences....

[Elphaba]

I realize my thread's subject matter brings out very strong feelings and diverse opinions, and though I obviously disagree with many of you, I still appreciate you taking the time to post on it.

What I don't appreciate is people using the "laugh" button in a sarcastic manner to respond to a post you disagree with. It is mocking, not laughing, and that was never what the laugh function was meant to for.

Stop mocking people's posts with the laugh button. If you have something to say, write your own post.

Elphaba

Edited February 21, 2009 by Elphaba

[Palerider]

Did I also tell you I subscribe to the Limbaugh Letter....

[lilered]

Elpha: While I agree with a great deal of what you wrote, I also have learned by expierence not to dismiss everything that someone in opposition says. A kernel of truth is still the truth no matter where the source, whether it be Rush, Hannity, or Matt Lauer, etc.. The trick of course is to be able to sift thru the B.S. to find the truth. I also understand your views about Bush and the leadership he provided, but where we may differ is that while Bush may have been President, he is not totally responsible for everything that is happening today and the debacles we are presently facing. In my view, there is plenty of blame to go around, and that includes both Republicans and Democrats. Again, in my view, a few of the compelling root causes is plain and simple greed, envy, poor managment, and lack of accountability.

In my opinion, it is much too soon to judge Obama as a President and leader. We must, and should give him and his team time to prove themselves.

[Palerider]

I have mentioned before and I will say it again....I don't thnik all the blame goes to Bush for our current situation....there is enough blame to go all over both sides....I could start with the housing mess, but I won't.

I am also not an Obama fan and probally never will be. I do not think he can come close to his well over 500 campaign promises he made, having said all of that....

Our current situation...I pray for all of our leaders they might be inspired to find a way to guide us out of this mess. With Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank and Dingy Harry....I am not sure they have a clue.....so lets all pray for them....be positive....:)

[Elphaba]

Elpha: While I agree with a great deal of what you wrote, I also have learned by expierence not to dismiss everything that someone in opposition says. A kernel of truth is still the truth no matter where the source, whether it be Rush, Hannity, or Matt Lauer, etc.. The trick of course is to be able to sift thru the B.S. to find the truth.

Hi red,

Of course you're right, and I swear I had admitted this in my last post, but it's not there so I obviously edited it out. You know how my posts tend to be books, so I try to delete a lot. I am sorry I deleted that part.

I absolutely agree there are times when any of them is right, and that those times are not necessarily that far apart. I really honestly try to acknowledge that when it happens.

For example, I don't remember who it was, but it was a television commentary claming Obama's appointments come from very diverse backgrounds, including many minorities and women, which is true.

However, he went on to claim Bush's appointments were not as diverse, and I thought to myself "in what world"? Bush's appointments came from very diverse background as well, and I always felt his appointments were not based on trying to appease those (like me) who called for more diversity. In my opinion, the people Bush appointed just happened to be minorities, not the other way around.

The point being, these people exist on the left as well, and this a perfect example of their not giving any credit whatsoever to anyone except Obama, and obviously it is as wrong as those people on the right who reject Obama’s actions simply because it is Obama.

I also understand your views about Bush >snip<Again, in my view, a few of the compelling root causes is plain and simple greed, envy, poor managment, and lack of accountability.

I knew when I posted my opinion that people were going to strongly disagree with me, and I think that is fine.

I was being simplistic on purpose to save space, and because I wanted to emphasize the point that I did give him a chance, and so should everyone else. But I don't disagree with what you've written.

In my opinion, it is much too soon to judge Obama as a President and leader. We must, and should give him and his team time to prove themselves.

Thanks for that--it's what I keep trying to explain in post after post, and you've just done it in one paragraph.

Elphaba

[Palerider]

We do know one thing about his team....they don't like to pay taxes.....:D:D:D

[Elphaba]

We do know one thing about his team....they don't like to pay taxes.....:D:D:D

Tell me about it!

I suspect Obama chose the people he thought would best fill the positions, trusting them their taxes, and every other aspect of their lives, were in order.

I think it is ridiculous to claim he knew about these people's tax problems before nominating them, because he would have known these tax issues would have been discovered, as they almost always are given the level of scrutiny these people are under.

This is especially true given the significant number of his nominees who had these tax issues. If it had been only one nominee, maybe he would have gotten away with it, though I doubt it. But more than one? No way.

He also certainly would have known what a blow to his credibility these taxes issues would have caused--and now what they have caused.

In fact, I can only imagine his chagrin at the whole situation. It has really hurt his credibility with many people, and understandably so.

So, does your wall have enough space for more punches?

Elphie

[Palerider]

I may have to get a new wall.......:D

[talisyn]

I realize my thread's subject matter brings out very strong feelings and diverse opinions, and though I obviously disagree with many of you, I still appreciate you taking the time to post on it.

What I don't appreciate is people using the "laugh" button in a sarcastic manner to respond to a post you disagree with. It is mocking, not laughing, and that was never what the laugh function was meant to for.

Stop mocking people's posts with the laugh button. If you have something to say, write your own post.

Elphaba

But what if they thought it was funny?

[talisyn]

I suspect that the conditions that caused this debacle have been a work for quite some time. The reason I believe that is the massive amount of dollars that is being thrown at the problem to try to stop the hemmoraging. To expound on this a bit further.

It is my understanding concerning the housing and banking issues, that several years back our government in its effort to obtain afforable housing for disenfranchized voters put in place certain requirements and incentives for lending institutions to qualify borrowers. They in affect pressured the Banking and lending instituions to lend housing money to financially unqualified purchasers.

The old way was that if one desired to purchase a new home, they were required to have 15 - 25% down first to qualify for a loan, plus have good credit and be employed and financially solvent to afford the home.

However, the rules were changed to allow lower income folks to qualify by suspending the normal down payment and in fact were allowed to purchase the home without benefit of a downpayment as well as many cases with poor or no credit and in some cases no job.

In addition thousands of loans were written that gave a very favorable low interest rate for a few years, but then the interest rate was raised to a much higher one for the remainder of the loan or a balloon payment was required.

The assumption was that these folks deserved a part of the American dream of owing a house etc. and they would be better citizens and voters etc. In other words the government would help them achieve a raise in their standard of living.

The assumption was that the real estate market would always grow, they would be able to always make their payments, etc. and real estate would always grow in value. In addition, the lending institutions were lending in excess of the assessed value of the home which allowed many borrowers to also furnish the home or purchase a new car etc. with the housing loan.

All was well until these same unqualified home purchasers couldn't continue to make their payments either because they lost their job, or they couldn;t make the increased interest payment or refinance the home to get rid of the due balloon payment. The bubble burst and the banks and lending instituions were left holding the bank for thousands of homes.

Keep in mind that those that were responsible for creating the problem are still in Congress and working feverishly to point the finger at everyone but themselves.

This is true, to a point. A couple actually. One point is these risky loans that all of a sudden were everywhere. The Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac thing has been around since the late 70s I believe, so I don't see the bill you're referring to as being the main problem. The problem started when banks and investors started doing business like Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart usually has very little mark-up, but is able to make tons of money by selling a lot of stuff for only $1 or so above wholesale. Some genius thought they could make just as much money off 500,000 small $75,000 house loans as they could with 2 or 3 $1million dollar loans, and with a more enthusiastic market.

Next point is people started bundling these risky loans and sold them to investors, which made these loans valuable, which caused the 'value' of the houses to rise so people took out second mortgages when they still had like 25 years left on the first loan. That $75,000 house suddenly was worth $250,000 so they refinanced at the new rate, then 3 years later is back to $75,000. That's a lot of money to pay out for a plain old house >< And this was happening everywhere. My favorite British online paper has daily articles about people getting kicked out of their homes for failure to keep up.

I'm sorry. I had a rough night at work and this is just making me depressed. I was planning on buying a house in 5 years, but I don't see how, with the banks being so scared, that's gonna happen without at least 35% down instead of the traditional 20%.

[Elphaba]

But what if they thought it was funny?

Then by all means, they should laugh away, but they should not do with the Laugh button.

The Laugh button was always meant to show genuine appreciation of a poster’s intentional humor. In fact, last November Heather temporarily disabled the laugh button because people were using it to mock posts containing people’s opinions, especially political opinions, that were not meant to be funny.

The same thing is happening in this thread. It is obvious when a person intends his/her post to be humorous, and when s/he does not. If the poster’s intent was not to be funny, but you find it humorous because you think it is stupid, or something like it, then your amusement is disdain, not genuine appreciation.

There’s nothing wrong with that; however, disdainful amusement is not what the Laugh button is meant for, by anyone.

So if they think it's funny, but in a mocking way, then they should not use the Laugh button.

Clear enough?

Elphaba