Reply With Quote
I think you are getting unemployment mixed up with welfare. Unemployment only lasts 26 weeks -- possibly 39 with a new extension.
Not at all. The current Democratically controlled congress should be as open as possible. If they don't do that, then I would call them to the carpet for it.
I merely was asking if there was any commitment at all for openness from the past GOP congress.
If they said they would give 48 hours for comment, and only gave ten, then that is a bad thing.
It is also 100% more notice than the Republicans gave, to my knowledge.
As I said, I am happy with the direction, if not the results. I am willing to be patient to see if things will ultimately pan out and think that expecting new processes to be rolled out 100% flawlessly is either stupid, naive, or someone attempting to cynically score political points.
Let me know if you expect everything to roll out 100% smoothly as your posts seem to imply, so we can figure out which group you fit into.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 02-13-2009 at 02:35 PM.
I think you are getting unemployment mixed up with welfare. Unemployment only lasts 26 weeks -- possibly 39 with a new extension.
Ok with what exactly?
(confused)
If you mean OK with the stimulus bill:
No. It could definitely be better.
If you mean the 10 hour notice when 48 was promised:
No. They should have done what they said they would. I also don't find the delay in putting out the notice that troubling, as there was probably a fair reason for it.
Unless you have proof positive that the reason for it was to deliberately keep it from the public, in which case, my opinion would change.
If I were to show you the steps the administration is actually taking to promote more open government, would you actually say what is taking place now is better than what was taking place during the Bush administration?... and trying to end the culture of secrecy left over from the previous s bags running the executive branch.
I want to know that if I take the time to do the research, it won't be to throw it away on someone whose mind is made up already.
The commerce department is part of which of the three branches of government?
No. No confusion.
1/2 a year @ $1,200 per month (2002 dollars, don't know if it is more now), is too much, IMO. -I know, I sound heartless.
I would be happy to see that there is some substance to the rhetoric, and will admit as much. I, frankly, have been surprised at what has transpired so far; I was expecting better - namely Obama leaving the stimulus package construction up to the House, and little stuff like picking, and telling reporters beforehand who gets to ask questions. My biggest concern, however, is the fear mongering to pass the stimulus bill. It was wrong when Bush did it with Iraq, it is wrong now.
On the other side, I am pleasantly surprised by Pres. Obama's statement of non-support for a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.
Not everyone gets paid that amount.
And the Justice Department is in which of the three branches of government? Oh, I nearly forgot. When Bush asserted his authority over the federal bureaucracy, it was heavy-handed and crude. Obama's different.
The commerce department is part of which of the three branches of government?
Yeah, it's less than that for many, I know, but this is somewhat off track.
The "stimulus" bill should stimulate the economy; unemployment does not do that. That should be part of a "compassion" bill, or a "safety net" bill; debate it on its own merits; but call a spade a spade.
He's got a point, RG.
And Princess Pelosi says this "stimulus" bill contains the largest middle-class tax cut in history. A fricking $13 a week - give me a break!
This whole thing stinks to high heaven - but thankfully, the stink is all on the democrats!
On the contrary, unemployment benefits and food stamps are spent pretty much immediately. People without jobs tend to have to do that.
That's stimulative.
This campaign promise had already been broken with the women's right bill that passed earlier. They rushed it through. There was really no reason to rush that other bill through and I honestly didn't care but I think its fairly stupid to make that type of a campaign promise and then turn around and break it when you could have easily kept it.
I think its hillarious the people are ing about now though. Its the same rovian politics of outrage at every thing, no matter how minor. Its old, tired and may work for Hannity and ty talk show radio but most of the time you just get tuned out because you're like the same barking dog who never shuts up.
On the transperency front, this white house is by FAR the most transparent to have ever gone into office and they'll continue to do so. Gino trying to make something out of nothing with the Census is pretty damn funny considering the GOP - especially Gregg - wanted to get rid of the Commerce department all together. He should have been happy with that move.
Job Creation increases productivity - makes the pie bigger for all of us.
The rest is simply wealth transfer - either from tax payor to benefit recipient or from future generation to benefit recipient.
Can't keep up Doobs? He's saying authority over the Census really isn't changing. But sure, if Obama somehow uses this to start forcing illegal prosecutions you may have a point and we'll all be just as outraged as you.
Food stamps = wealth transfer now? Thats funny.
Bush didn't "assert authority over the federal bureaucracy". Cheney and Rove did.
That was part of the problem.
If you want to get into a pissing contest there is a rather large gulf between "having the director of census work closely with White House senior management." and actively going out and firing prosecutors who didn't pursue politically motivated cases with as much vigor as was felt appropriate by the Vice President.
Further, if you can find ANYWHERE, that the Obama administration ILLEGALLY imposed political litmus tests for civil service jobs, feel free to present that evidence.
Otherwise, the best research I can find on this, outside of Fox "News", says that Obama's stated intention is to merely allow the director of the Census to have an open line of communication with the White House.
The best neutral analysis of the whole thing can be seen here:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009...s_commerc.html
Bottom line: The Obama administraton could have had a different approach to placate nervous Democrats. The Obama team could have made it clear that the White House would appoint the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, the person who runs the Commerce Department's Economics and Statistics Administration, a shop which includes the Bureau of the Census
As it is, I call bull .
WASHINGTON--Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) issued this statement in response to House Republicans' census press event this morning:
"House Republicans borrowed a page from Seinfeld today: they made a show about nothing. Even though the White House issued a statement saying that they were NOT proposing removing the Census from the Department of Commerce or directing the Census from the White House, today House Republicans had a press event to decry what ISN'T happening. And when questioned with that fact during the event, the Republicans effectively said 'So what? We still want to investigate it.'"
The AP's White House spokesman Benjamin LaBolt quote:
"This administration has not proposed removing the census from the Department of Commerce and the same congressional committees that had oversight during the previous administration will retain that authority."
-- http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090211/...ensus_politics
Keep drinking the cool-aid, because it worked so well for the Republicans so far...
Last edited by RandomGuy; 02-13-2009 at 05:00 PM.
No, he doesn't.
The census thing was a non-issue, inflated for purely political purposes by Republicans in congress and the conservative media.
Imposing political guidelines with one of the one department in the government that should be the MOST politically independent is a far cry from opening up a "line of communication".
As I just said, if you ever find an instance where the Obama administration ever lets a poltical appointee illegally impose political litmus tests on hirees and employees, feel free to present that.
Until then, the comparison is disengenious at best, and actively dishonest at worst.
It's about the politicization of the federal bureaucracy. (And you should really learn the meaning of the term "illegal prosecution" before you start throwing it around.)
The Bush Administration got in trouble for firing 7 US Attorneys--not because it was illegal, but because many people thought he was politicizing the Justice Department. (The Justice Department is part of the Executive Branch.)
Except for purely political reasons, I can see no good reason why Obama insists on effectively moving the Census Bureau into the White House.
RG's point about the Commerce Department being in the Executive Branch is very similar to the arguments made in defense of the Bush Administration's firings of the US Attorneys. Technically, it's legal. But that's not the problem.
For the record, I think this move is crummy and an obvious attempt at DeLay-style politicking. (I'm sure you'll explain to me the nobility and wisdom of it all.) But, regardless, it's Obama's prerogative. Just like firing the 7 US Attorneys was Bush's prerogative. Both appear to be heavy-handed and crude examples of partisan bull .
So who waves the wand to create jobs overnight?
The rest is simply wealth transfer - either from tax payor to benefit recipient or from future generation to benefit recipient.It's money and food for people without jobs.
Your wife needs to give her money back now.
Report Sees Illegal Hiring Practices at Justice Dept.
WASHINGTON -- Justice Department officials over the last six years illegally used “political or ideological” factors to hire new lawyers into an elite recruitment program, tapping law school graduates with conservative credentials over those with liberal-sounding resumes, a new report found Tuesday.
Times Topics: U.S. AttorneysThe blistering report, prepared by the Justice Department’s inspector general, is the first in what will be a series of investigations growing out of last year’s scandal over the firings of nine United States attorneys. It appeared to confirm for the first time in an official examination many of the allegations from critics who charged that the Justice Department had become overly politicized during the Bush administration.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/wa...d-justice.html
Full text available:The do entary evidence and witness interviews also support
the conclusion that two members of the 2006 Screening Committee,
Esther Slater McDonald and Michael Elston, took political or ideological
affiliations into account in deselecting candidates in violation of
Department policy and federal law. For example, the evidence showed
that McDonald wrote disparaging statements about candidates’ liberal
and Democratic Party affiliations on the applications she reviewed and
that she voted to deselect candidates on that basis.
We also found that Elston, the head of the 2006 Committee,
failed to take appropriate action when he learned that McDonald was
routinely deselecting candidates on the basis of what she perceived to
be the candidates’ liberal affiliations. The evidence also showed that
Elston himself deselected some candidates – and allowed the
deselection of others – based on impermissible considerations. Despite
his initial denial in our interview that he did not consider such
inappropriate factors, he later admitted in the interview that he may
have deselected candidates in a few instances due to their affiliation
with certain causes. In addition, Elston was unable to give a credible
reason as to why specific highly qualified candidates with liberal or
Democratic credentials were deselected.
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0806/final.pdf
not one republican voted yes on the bill?
if this is true, then anything short of epidimic and famine will make them look like even bigger jagoffs. (if that's possible)
they have to pray for complete destruction and hate for america.
That's great, because it isn't being moved into the White House.
What are you afraid of here?For the record, I think this move is crummy and an obvious attempt at DeLay-style politicking. (I'm sure you'll explain to me the nobility and wisdom of it all.) But, regardless, it's Obama's prerogative. Just like firing the 7 US Attorneys was Bush's prerogative. Both appear to be heavy-handed and crude examples of partisan bull .
Please provide a source statement from the White House that supports this.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
