PDA

View Full Version : President Obama meets with the GOP House Issues Conference, takes questions...



Stick
30th January 10, 04:08 PM
I'm still watching, but I've heard this is something special so I'm putting it up here before I really know what goes down.

He speachifies for the first 15 minutes, and then takes questions for the next hour and ten minutes.

w1-jasxb7NY

fes_fsa
30th January 10, 04:12 PM
i'm glad he's taken the initiative and is finally showing some backbone.

and KUDOS to the GOP for accepting him graciously.

this is DEFINITELY worth watching...

but talks don't mean anything... what remains to be seen is how they are when they get back to the Capitol.

SifuAbel
30th January 10, 05:22 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/35153831#35153831 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/35153831#35153831)

Here's a snippet. What Cris Mathews said about this on their recap show rings true.

The purpose of this meeting was to get a televised and public rebutle to the GOP talking points, that have basically become their own dogma, on tape. To get them to show themselves as the party of "no', obstructionism, and spin for spin sake. This does not look good for the GOP as they are being seen as a party that has become too infused into their own paradigm of Fox news "sans fact check" style reality.

Speaking of Fox so called news. They were the only ones to interrupt the live telecast to interject their own comments, usually just after a talking point style question was asked and over Obama's response. Shame on you!!!

HappyOldGuy
30th January 10, 06:24 PM
Partisan whatsitsness aside.

We need more of this kind of thing.

WarPhalange
30th January 10, 06:34 PM
I'm still watching, but I've heard this is something special so I'm putting it up here before I really know what goes down.

He speachifies for the first 15 minutes, and then takes questions for the next hour and ten minutes.

w1-jasxb7NY

I like how the White House has a Youtube account. And it's not even capitalized or anything...

Sun Wukong
31st January 10, 10:05 AM
but talks don't mean anything... what remains to be seen is how they are when they get back to the Capitol.


If talks don't mean anyting, then why didn't GWB address his critics directly even once in his entire 8 years in office?

Sun Wukong
31st January 10, 10:08 AM
GWB's speeches were more like Fly-overs.

SifuAbel
31st January 10, 10:57 AM
If talks don't mean anyting, then why didn't GWB address his critics directly even once in his entire 8 years in office?Because he was a trained chimp. He was a good reader. He could read a speech and sound convincing. Its when he had to actually speak off the cuff do we get 99% of his most famous doofenheimer flubs.

8Ux3DKxxFoM

Whats with the no video embedding?

Bottom line is that he just plain COULDN'T answer questions. That would mean he'd actually have to KNOW the issues. That was Chaney's job.

edit-fixed that for you, Rudy

Cullion
31st January 10, 11:06 AM
Obama's not exactly inspiring without a script either.

Sun Wukong
31st January 10, 11:11 AM
It wasn't just GWB. It was also everyone in his administration; cheney, rumsfeld, every press secretary, Rice, etc.

They put into place a vacuum of communication and lied openly on occasion.

The reason: they were afraid of having to answer for their mistakes in a public forum where they would lose credibility and damage their reputations among their supporters.

They let their press pundits speak for them and then accused the press of a liberal bias whenever it turned against them.

Sun Wukong
31st January 10, 11:18 AM
Obama's not exactly inspiring without a script either.

Yet he took it upon himself to directly address his detractors and cut through the PR bullshit.

SifuAbel
31st January 10, 11:33 AM
Thats what cullion gets for channel surfing through the meeting.

Cullion
31st January 10, 11:46 AM
Yes, he is more articulate than Bush. I still think he's America's Blair.

SifuAbel
31st January 10, 11:55 AM
Except Blair was a lapdog. I don't agree with that comparison at all.

Cullion
31st January 10, 11:56 AM
Obama rolls over and takes it for the banks.

SifuAbel
31st January 10, 12:03 PM
Being articulate should be a matter of course for any president. Obama here showed way more than just a good speaking ability. He showed that he knew the facts of the issues. He could take a question and actually debate you with clarity. Something the REPs have been lacking. They have been caught listening too much to the rhetoric and talking points they've created instead of remembering that most of that was just their creation, not a fact.

The bottom line, McCain's "just blame bush" retort is a giant hypocrisy. They were in power for over a decade. Obama did in fact inherit these problems. Blame Bush? Why not? Who else?

Cullion
31st January 10, 12:07 PM
He's making several of the problems worse.

SifuAbel
31st January 10, 12:08 PM
Obama rolls over and takes it for the banks.Or what? thats a strawman. Its really convenient for those who cry out about the banks and yet if he let the whole thing go ala "capitalist" we'd be in a giant depression right now and the same people would be bitching about how Obama didn't do exactly what he did.

Its crazy, its a very comfortable argument. From a comfortable position since we are not on a soup line right now.

What you are suggesting is exactly what Hoover did. Do nothing, let the banks fail, freeze spending, let it all go to shit. Great depression.

Cullion
31st January 10, 12:10 PM
Or what? thats a strawman. Its really convenient for those who cry out about the banks and yet if he let the whole thing go ala "capitalist" we'd be in a giant depression right now and the same people would be bitching about how Obama didn't do exactly what he did.

I wouldn't.



Its crazy, its a very comfortable argument. From a comfortable position since we are not on a soup line right now.

What you are suggesting is exactly what Hoover did. Do nothing, let the banks fail, freeze spending, let it all go to shit. Great depression.

Nobody remembers the depression of 1921 precisely because a non-interventionist policy allowed the market to correct within 18 months. The interventionist programmes of the Great Depression we all remember were a substantial cause of said depression.

SifuAbel
31st January 10, 12:14 PM
Horseshit on a stick. You wouldn't, really? You'd be the first one on the soapbox. Give me a break.

totally wrong.

Cullion
31st January 10, 12:16 PM
It's totally true. I've consistently opposed the bailouts from a coherent position.

HappyOldGuy
31st January 10, 01:03 PM
Cullion isn't an american. He doesn't care about our political sports teams.

And he is an devoted follower of austrian economics. So no, he wouldn't.

He would have applauded while the breadlines formed.

Cullion
31st January 10, 01:06 PM
Carrying the burden of parasitic zombie banks for decades will cause more misery, for a longer period of time.

fes_fsa
31st January 10, 02:00 PM
If talks don't mean anyting, then why didn't GWB address his critics directly even once in his entire 8 years in office?

i was merely pointing out that the proof of sincerity is what happens when they all get back to DC. THEY. not just Obama. the GOP as well.

why are you trying to turn this into a Bush discussion?

fes_fsa
31st January 10, 02:35 PM
It wasn't just GWB. It was also everyone in his administration; cheney, rumsfeld, every press secretary, Rice, etc.

They put into place a vacuum of communication and lied openly on occasion.

The reason: they were afraid of having to answer for their mistakes in a public forum where they would lose credibility and damage their reputations among their supporters.

They let their press pundits speak for them and then accused the press of a liberal bias whenever it turned against them.

okay... since you guys want to continue turning this into a discussion about Bush, it's simple: Bush didn't care what his opponents said. it was probably gonna be about the war in Iraq, or renewed contracts with Halliburton... and he didn't feel like explaining to those idiots that they were originally FOR the war (remember when you dolts were like... we shouldn't be in Afghanistan, remember the lost children of Iraq).... and didn't have time to delve into how our DoD PREFERS to sole source instead of open bid.

also... Republicans don't help themselves when they're in trouble.

and since you want to talk about fear, what about all the the times Obama said "that's for another day" or "that's a debate on its own"?

i give him credit for going. he should lose it for side stepping and being dismissive. i mean... what's the point in going if you're not gonna answer all the questions?

at least he admitted that the bills passed in Congress violated his own pledges on how the reform would be structured. then he blamed it on certain provisions being snuck in. LOL

Sun Wukong
31st January 10, 02:49 PM
Obama rolls over and takes it for the banks.


You're totally ignoring economic advisors, not to mention decades of keynesian economic management as tradition in the US.

WarPhalange
31st January 10, 02:54 PM
and since you want to talk about fear, what about all the the times Obama said "that's for another day" or "that's a debate on its own"?

i give him credit for going. he should lose it for side stepping and being dismissive. i mean... what's the point in going if you're not gonna answer all the questions?
He did answer all the questions. What he was "side stepping" was debate about individual bills that most people in the audience had no clue about.

There's this thing called "the point" and this thing called "other shit". The point was to show people what his stance is on various issues and correct discrepancies. The other shit is details about a specific bill most people haven't heard of.


at least he admitted that the bills passed in Congress violated his own pledges on how the reform would be structured. then he blamed it on certain provisions being snuck in. LOL

You have no idea how bills work, do you? Like, at all. A bill has a shitload of things that will happen if it is passed. You can sneak in "research on the smell of pig shit after being screamed at by old ladies" in a bill for education. Do you veto the entire bill based on that one earmark? Or do you let it slide because you know that the main point of the bill is more important?

Cullion
31st January 10, 02:58 PM
You're totally ignoring economic advisors

That he appointed.


not to mention decades of keynesian economic management as tradition in the US.

No, I'm not ignoring it.

Sun Wukong
31st January 10, 03:02 PM
okay... since you guys want to continue turning this into a discussion about Bush, it's simple: Bush didn't care what his opponents said. it was probably gonna be about the war in Iraq, or renewed contracts with Halliburton... and he didn't feel like explaining to those idiots that they were originally FOR the war (remember when you dolts were like... we shouldn't be in Afghanistan, remember the lost children of Iraq).... and didn't have time to delve into how our DoD PREFERS to sole source instead of open bid.

So you still believe those CIA WMD reports weren't highly edited to make the case for the invasion? The public was lied to make the case for the invasion and if the Dem's had voted against it, it would have been a massive PR win for the Republican party. If somebody says, "hey this guy that has declared his own jihad against you is trying to illegally stockpile nukes and has built a suitcase bomb was in on the 9/11 plot", it's generally a good idea to check things out.

There were two ways to get in to accomplish that:

Invade.

Let the U.N. inspectors do their jobs. Saddam delayed the inspectors frequently and then Bush moved up the invasion after getting permission from congress to declare war.

Having permission to invade and doing it before all other alternatives have been exhausted are two entirely different things do not equal the Democrats being equally responsible for how the war turned out.



also... Republicans don't help themselves when they're in trouble.

not sure what you mean by that.



and since you want to talk about fear, what about all the the times Obama said "that's for another day" or "that's a debate on its own"?

What's that got to do with fear?




at least he admitted that the bills passed in Congress violated his own pledges on how the reform would be structured. then he blamed it on certain provisions being snuck in. LOL

He's the Chief executive officer, not the chief legislative officer. You realize the US system of law is extremely complicated and bills can be amended on the floor at any time right?

Wounded Ronin
31st January 10, 06:11 PM
Nobody remembers the depression of 1921 precisely because a non-interventionist policy allowed the market to correct within 18 months.

I thought that was because everyone who experienced it is now dead.

Cullion
31st January 10, 07:37 PM
Well, they're not.

Sun Wukong
31st January 10, 08:13 PM
Nobody remembers the depression of 1921 precisely because a non-interventionist policy allowed the market to correct within 18 months. The interventionist programmes of the Great Depression we all remember were a substantial cause of said depression.

The great depression lasted from 1929 to 1939. 10 years, not 18 months.

Unemployment grew to about 1/3 of the country.

Some cities reported as much as a 700% increase in homelessness.



Except for Germany, the United States among all the nations was hardest hit by unemployment. With nearly a third of Americans out of a job, homelessness soared. The crisis exploded almost overnight, with cities reporting increases in homelessness of almost sevenfold. Figures from the government put the number at roughly one and a half million people, and that was a conservative estimate. The homeless epidemic hit all groups. It wasn't just men who found themselves living on the streets, whole families had nowhere to go. The numbers of African American homeless also increased by almost a quarter. Women, children and minorities often faced the added struggle of dealing with prejudice from the communities from which they sought help.

A unique aspect of homelessness during the Depression was the emergence of shanty towns called Hoovervilles. Derogatorily named after President Hoover, they were cobbled together by the homeless in various locations around the United States. Men, women and even children who had no place else to go came together in a makeshift community of sorts. The homeless would sleep in tents or in shacks made out of cardboard or other flimsy materials. One of the largest of the time was located in Central Park in New York City. There were simply not enough shelters and other charitable organizations available to deal with the sudden increase in the numbers of homeless, and public officials were often overwhelmed, leaving the homeless to fend for themselves.

Wall Street might have and the economic opportunists recovered but the population sure hadn't for years. It took WWII to get the US back on it's feet.

These weren't welfare families or drug addicts and alcoholics, who would've been homeless otherwise. These were working families with homes and businesses and it wasn't just a few of them.

You know as well as I do that Keynes points to laissez-faire economic practices as being one of the central culprits of the collapse.

fes_fsa
31st January 10, 08:59 PM
He did answer all the questions. What he was "side stepping" was debate about individual bills that most people in the audience had no clue about.

There's this thing called "the point" and this thing called "other shit". The point was to show people what his stance is on various issues and correct discrepancies. The other shit is details about a specific bill most people haven't heard of.

i understand that it wasn't exactly the place to discuss every minute detail, so... lemme get this one out of the way first: he blew off the C-SPAN question--where the nitty gritty COULD BE DISCUSSED.

you mention the word debate--when did this happen? i don't know if this meeting was a press opportunity, or maybe just a meeting to hash things out, but there certainly wasn't any debating going on--not when one side takes up the majority of the air time.

and what bills were you talking about? when any sort of legislation was brought to the forefront to be discussed, it was met with "i've read what you've presented"; "i've taken bits and pieces of it that i like and put it into my own mutant bill"; "sorry if you didn't think we were taking your opposing concerns seriously--the IMAGINARY ECONOMISTS and DOCTORS we've presented your points to say they're not realistic or practical."

and whenever any questions about the Democrats' criticisms of the GOP were brought up, it was met with "Democrats and Republicans UNITE!"

nevermind that Pelosi and ilk are locking them out of meeting rooms and holding secret meetings (much like they did in CA). something that was insinuated, but that wasn't addressed either.


]You have no idea how bills work, do you? Like, at all. A bill has a shitload of things that will happen if it is passed. You can sneak in "research on the smell of pig shit after being screamed at by old ladies" in a bill for education. Do you veto the entire bill based on that one earmark? Or do you let it slide because you know that the main point of the bill is more important?


He's the Chief executive officer, not the chief legislative officer. You realize the US system of law is extremely complicated and bills can be amended on the floor at any time right?

so... you're telling me that a bill can be passed into Law even if the President hasn't read all of it?

Ajamil
31st January 10, 09:53 PM
I'd be surprised if the number of bills the pres. read fully was over twenty a year.

Sun Wukong
31st January 10, 10:03 PM
so... you're telling me that a bill can be passed into Law even if the President hasn't read all of it?

You're either baiting me here or you've forgotten the context of what was being discussed.

When bills are being discussed in congress they are open to amendment long before the president gets them. They can be amended and changed regardless of what the president wants or promised because of this thing called checks and balances.

In the absense of line item veto, presidents often must accept bills as they are presented or veto them entirely. if an important bill is vetoed that is vital to the president's agenda because of an amendment he doesn't like, he may never see the bill again. The prez is faced with the choice of vetoing the bill and potentially delivering a killing blow to his agenda or passing an imperfect bill; the latter is most common in more important bills.

The president doesn't make laws himself, he merely passes the laws that make their way to his desk after congress is done with them.

Didn't you watch School House Rock as a kid?

WarPhalange
31st January 10, 10:03 PM
you mention the word debate--when did this happen? i don't know if this meeting was a press opportunity, or maybe just a meeting to hash things out, but there certainly wasn't any debating going on--not when one side takes up the majority of the air time.

I mentioned the word "debate", yes, as in, "It was not the time to debate specific details of some bill most people haven't heard of."

Like I said in the part you quoted, that was, well, first of all, orchestrated by the GOPs, so go yell at them for letting him take the majority of the air time, and secondly it was a venue so that the Prez. could state his stances on various issues and correct misconceptions. Preez get some reading skeelz.


and what bills were you talking about? when any sort of legislation was brought to the forefront to be discussed, it was met with "i've read what you've presented"; "i've taken bits and pieces of it that i like and put it into my own mutant bill";

Yes, which is exactly what I said. He specifically said time and time again "I won't debate this specific bill with you, but the point is..."


and whenever any questions about the Democrats' criticisms of the GOP were brought up, it was met with "Democrats and Republicans UNITE!"

What was he supposed to say?


nevermind that Pelosi and ilk are locking them out of meeting rooms and holding secret meetings (much like they did in CA). something that was insinuated, but that wasn't addressed either.

lol that was downright idiotic of the Dems.


so... you're telling me that a bill can be passed into Law even if the President hasn't read all of it?

If you have a Senator come amend the bill at night so that only 3 people know it has changed, then yes, he might think the bill is still like it was when he read it.

Secondly, like Arjuna says, the Prez. just probably gets the jist of every bill from his staff. This goes for all presidents, including Bush Jr. I'm sure there are things he let pass that he didn't want to, just because they were part of a bigger bill which he thought was more important than the earmark.

Ajamil
31st January 10, 10:23 PM
Obama should put out a four-year action plan, and pledge that won't run for a 2nd term as a sacrifice to show the importance of bipartisanship. It would big a big thrown gauntlet tot he GOP, and he probably won't win a 2nd term anyway.

HappyOldGuy
31st January 10, 11:10 PM
The great depression lasted from 1929 to 1939. 10 years, not 18 months.

Unemployment grew to about 1/3 of the country.

Some cities reported as much as a 700% increase in homelessness.


Except for Germany, the United States among all the nations was hardest hit by unemployment. With nearly a third of Americans out of a job, homelessness soared. The crisis exploded almost overnight, with cities reporting increases in homelessness of almost sevenfold. Figures from the government put the number at roughly one and a half million people, and that was a conservative estimate. The homeless epidemic hit all groups. It wasn't just men who found themselves living on the streets, whole families had nowhere to go. The numbers of African American homeless also increased by almost a quarter. Women, children and minorities often faced the added struggle of dealing with prejudice from the communities from which they sought help.

A unique aspect of homelessness during the Depression was the emergence of shanty towns called Hoovervilles. Derogatorily named after President Hoover, they were cobbled together by the homeless in various locations around the United States. Men, women and even children who had no place else to go came together in a makeshift community of sorts. The homeless would sleep in tents or in shacks made out of cardboard or other flimsy materials. One of the largest of the time was located in Central Park in New York City. There were simply not enough shelters and other charitable organizations available to deal with the sudden increase in the numbers of homeless, and public officials were often overwhelmed, leaving the homeless to fend for themselves.

Wall Street might have and the economic opportunists recovered but the population sure hadn't for years. It took WWII to get the US back on it's feet.

These weren't welfare families or drug addicts and alcoholics, who would've been homeless otherwise. These were working families with homes and businesses and it wasn't just a few of them.

You know as well as I do that Keynes points to laissez-faire economic practices as being one of the central culprits of the collapse.

Cullion is talking about the 1921 depression, not the great depression. Because it is an article of faith among the free marketeers that the lack of intervention in 1921 is why that depression only lasted 18 months whereas government intervention is why the great depression became great.

Of course that ignores the fact that most of the government intervention in the great depression didn't even start until the depression had already lasted more than 18 months.

Sun Wukong
31st January 10, 11:27 PM
Obama should put out a four-year action plan, and pledge that won't run for a 2nd term as a sacrifice to show the importance of bipartisanship. It would big a big thrown gauntlet tot he GOP, and he probably won't win a 2nd term anyway.

See, I disagree here. Unless the Republican's pick some guy with no history, I don't see them coming up with a Presidential candidate who can win after the primaries.

jkdbuck76
2nd February 10, 12:17 PM
I think that Mr. Obama will get the second term.

I think that more repubs will go to the congress in 2010.

It will help Mr. Obama. I didn't like Bush. And I don' like what I'm seeing now out of Mr. Obama. I remember when the national debt was a mere 2.2 trillion. I wonder if Washington, Jefferson et al 1) ever saw us lasting as long as we have as a country and 2) our 12 trillion dollar debt. Holy shit, the Batman!

Ajamil
2nd February 10, 02:16 PM
I wonder if Washington, Jefferson et al 1) ever saw us lasting as long as we have as a country
Absolutely. I can't see them thinking this country would ever end. Not the nature of people. Not the nature of their ambition.

and 2) our 12 trillion dollar debt. Holy shit, the Batman!They could have "thought" about it, but do you think anyone can conceptualize the difference after it gets into the billions? I think of a trillion dollars, and a quintillion, and they're pretty much the same in terms of conceiving what it would look like or actually mean.

I don't think anyone in that time was thinking in terms of trillions though, just as we don't think in terms of quintillions, or googols. (Ha! Google has so usurped that word, that my spellchecker thinks it's wrong now!)

HappyOldGuy
2nd February 10, 05:52 PM
:emot-tinfoil:
Absolutely. I can't see them thinking this country would ever end. Not the nature of people. Not the nature of their ambition.
They could have "thought" about it, but do you think anyone can conceptualize the difference after it gets into the billions? I think of a trillion dollars, and a quintillion, and they're pretty much the same in terms of conceiving what it would look like or actually mean.

I don't think anyone in that time was thinking in terms of trillions though, just as we don't think in terms of quintillions, or googols. (Ha! Google has so usurped that word, that my spellchecker thinks it's wrong now!)

The raw numbers would have boggled their minds.

But relative to the size of their economy, their national debt dwarfed ours. So much so that Hamilton had to switch currencies from the original continental to the dollar at a rate of 1 to 100. Debt was a massive contributor to the failure of the articles of confederation.

Cullion
2nd February 10, 06:15 PM
The great depression lasted from 1929 to 1939. 10 years, not 18 months.

You're not usually a retard dude. Note the year in my post.



Unemployment grew to about 1/3 of the country.

Some cities reported as much as a 700% increase in homelessness.

Yes, you're talking about the depression which everybody remembers. Which is the one they tried to fix with Keynsianism.




You know as well as I do that Keynes points to laissez-faire economic practices as being one of the central culprits of the collapse.

Yeah, I don't agree with analysis and his methods are partly responsible what we're experiencing today. It will get worse.