So, Obama announced a discretionary spending freeze that doesn't really apply to anything that will save very much money. (Relatively speaking.)
Why?
Why is Obama caving in to deficit hawks when he doesn't have to?
If you want to save billions and billions of dollars a year, here's three things we can do: stop spending more money on defense than even Ronald Reagan did by ending our involvement in two wars that we will not win; stop funding our own agricultural collapse through factory farming; and give us universal health care.
If you want to save something like 1 percent over the next three years, you have a discretionary spending freeze on everything else.
Does Obama realize that he won the election by a majority? Why is he still sucking up to the Right? Doesn't he realize that they're never going to like him? Like, ever? This isn't going to appease them. Just do the job we elected you to do, already. By trying to grab more support, you're losing what you already had.
We elected Democrats to do more, not less.
Is Obama suddenly buying the right wing lie that government spending caused the recession?
Does he not realize that FDR tried to do the same thing in 1937 and it was a disaster which might even have extended the Great Depression by two or three years? Doesn't he realize you need to spend money to stimulate the economy? Is he unaware that the unemployment rate (as reported, not the "hidden" rate, which is higher) is at 10 percent while states cut funding and slash jobs?
The economy is actually improving; jobs always come after the economy recovers, but if you look at the numbers, the economy actually is recovering (slowly but surely) and the job loss rate has notably slowed. The bailout money is being recovered too. As much of a naysayer as I was, I have to admit, the stimulus worked. From a political viewpoint, it's been a Democratic victory that the economy didn't collapse and a further victory that the Republicans have been forced, in their attempts at obstructionism, to take stands against consumer protection and against middle class tax cuts.
So why give up ground that you don't have to? This is an enormous mistake. Especially when you consider that Obama the Candidate was against a spending freeze.
Jesus Christ, Barry; we want a healthy economy. Why don't you?
Personally, I was disappointed in Obama's SOTU speech. Yeah, he did say that because of the stimulus (or, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009), there were 2 million jobs saved that are, I think, essential to America: teachers, construction workers, police, firefighters, first responders, etc. He did point out that the middle class tax cuts helped American families. But I wish he'd taken more credit for it.
Only three Republicans voted for the Recovery Act; after all of those concessions to the Republicans in the name of Obama's pipe dream of bipartisanship, the Republicans still refused to vote for the bill. They dealt with Obama in bad faith after he tried and tried and tried to deal with them honestly. They voted against it, and the bill worked.
He should've said to the American people, in no uncertain terms, they had Obama and the Democrats and three Republicans to thank, and that the vast majority of the Republican Party had tried to stand in their way.
Instead, he just sort of pleaded with the Republican side to just, come on, already, play nice and be all bipartisan and I'll be your best friend, guys. He looked like a weakling. I think he must be the only person who gives a shit about bipartisanship at this point, and it makes him look like a fool.
The Republicans don't give a shit. And you know what? Politically they have practically no power, anyway. So quit handing them their petty victories and letting them play obstruction games when you can just ignore them.
Do the right thing because it's the right thing to do.
My God, champion something and god damn fight for it.
Results, not good intentions.
Stop playing it so safe.
You can't please everyone all the time. Stop trying and do your damn job. Lead already.
(Oh, and no points for mentioning how we need to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell. This is the second time he's mentioned it, and there's zero action happening there. If he wanted to end it, he could just end it right now.)
Friday, January 29, 2010
Obama Frustration Continues Ever On
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)














5 comments:
have you seen this?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/29/transcript-of-president-o_n_442423.html
It's Obama's q&a with House Republicans. It's an absolute ass stomping, but it gets his goddamn points across. How effective is it? It's so effective at slapping republicans for their obstructive tactics that Fox News pulled it from air 20 minutes before it concluded.
The thing about the President is that he really is trying to pull us together and get some consensus and credit. I feel the same way about the federal spending freeze (I was hoping to get a job at the USPTO after I graduate law school in July, but no such luck now), but at least here he explains his reasoning.
Also, with DADT, Obama wants it to end permanently, but by law. DADT is a law created by Congress, but subject to the Executive's discretion. It means that the President can decide whether or not to enforce it. However, once he leave office it's up to the next President whether or not to enforce it.
I hate DADT as much as the next person, but I'd rather have it for a little while longer and then never again rather than let it be at the whims at whomever's Executive administration.
Thanks for passing the link on; I'll be taking a look at that this morning.
I understand that Obama really wants to pull us together, but I think he's doing a poor job of it. He's being too sensitive when right now we need firm decisions and a sense of direction. I don't think he's given us either so far, and it's disappointing. There's something to be said for being open to everyone's opinions, but right now this is like the episode of The Office where Jim tried to consolidate the birthdays; Obama is making so many concessions to what everyone wants that eventually change becomes too hard.
As far as DADT, I'd love it gone forever, too, but nothing is happening. At the very least, Obama could suspend it pending a Congressional committee. Hell, he could just suspend it and let gays openly serve in our two wars, and when no one gets raped, or whatever the hell it is homophobes think is going to happen, point proven.
Well, I agree with you, sort of. And I think he has been too timid. But he had an ambitious agenda - too ambitious some think - bollocked in no small part by the budget crisis. Certain things such as DADT were going to be back burnered. Yes he could do it by fiat, but without buy-in from the military and the Congressional committees overseeing it - which IS actually coming - he wins the battle and loses the war, as it were.
The fact that McCain wanted a spending freeze was one of several reasons I was relieved that Obama won, and now he's in favor of it as well. What's next, Obama coming out in favor of teaching Creationism in biology classes?
i just caught the SOTU a few days ago on youtube, and im still really young and have trouble grasping all the finer intricacies and implications of the speech. your analysis was a real pleasure to read and helped me get my head around why the president is, as you put it, "still sucking up to the Right." along with the comments left by other readers of your post i feel like im starting to understand more about politics. anyway im ranting now; all i really wanted to say was thanks for the good read.
Post a Comment