LOL Obama, "Different Washington, Transperency, Change, Hope, Hotdogs"

[FreeMason]

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30697

SURPRISE! Dems Break Promise: Stimulus Bill to Floor Friday

by Connie Hair (http://www.humanevents.com/search.php?author_name=Connie+Hair)


02/12/2009


In a press conference Thursday, the House Republican leadership spoke candidly about being kept out of the House-Senate conference on the Obama-Pelosi-Reid so-called “economic stimulus” bill. They confirmed they had not yet seen the text of the bill as of 4 p.m.

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he was unsure how many Democrats would vote with Republicans again on this bill but that he thought Republicans “may get a few” Democrats to side with them. The fact that the Demos have now broken their promise to have the public able to see the bill for 48 hours may drive more Dems into the Republican camp.

“[i] don’t know, ‘cause they haven’t seen the bill either,” Boehner said.

“The American people have a right to know what’s in this bill,” Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind) told HUMAN EVENTS after the press conference. “Every member of Congress -- Republicans and Democrats -- voted to post this bill on the internet for 48 hours, 48 hours ago. We’ll see if the Democrats keep their word.”

Actually -- as of 5:15 pm, the Democrats had broken their word. The stimulus bill -- which we still haven’t seen -- will be released late tonight and will be brought up on the House floor at 9 am tomorrow.

The following statement was released by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer at 4:57 p.m.:

"The House is scheduled to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow and is expected to proceed directly to consideration of the American Recovery and Reinvestment conference report. The conference report text will be filed this evening, giving members enough time to review the conference report before voting on it tomorrow afternoon."

Meanwhile, at an earlier presser Thursday, Pelosi -- while talking about legislation regarding school construction funds -- said it was vital to see the language of a bill before making decisions. ReadtheStimulus.org (http://readthestimulus.org/) had the following quote:

“With all of this you have to see the language. You said this --- I said that --- I understood it to be this way --- you know, we wanted to see it in writing and when we did that then we were able to go forward."

"Around here language means a lot. Words weigh a ton and one person's understanding of a spoken description might vary from another's. We wanted to see it. And not only just I had to see it, I had to show it to my colleagues and my caucus. We wanted to take all the time that was necessary to make sure it was right."

Congressional members are also exchanging barbs via the popular social network Twitter. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) twittered, "Don't know when we're going to vote. Will the no votes delay vote just because they can? Speed is important. They know that."

House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) twittered back, “Those in favor of speed over commonsense may just be afraid of letting the People know what they are ramming through.”

UPDATE: The Democrats finally made the bill's language available around 11 p.m. Thursday, approximately 10 hours before members meet Friday to consider the bill and 38 hours short of the time promised Americans to review the bill.

[clambake]

it's available, now what?

[FreeMason]

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20090212/i/r1447313307.jpg?x=243&y=345&q=85&sig=XKXNiqaUxmYVEOxp6j8dgA--

[FreeMason]

it's available, now what?

10 hours before the vote, not the 48 hours like they promised...


What do you get out of it by defending them? Are you getting a little something something under the table from this bill also? Lucky bastard :toast

[ChumpDumper]

Are you reviewing it now?

[FreeMason]

10 hours before the vote, not the 48 hours like they promised...


What do you get out of it by defending them? Are you getting a little something something under the table from this bill also? Lucky bastard :toast


Because surely clambake, you must be getting something out of it to support these guys rushing a 1k page bill through the system on a Friday stealing billions of taxpayer dollars to fund re-elections...

[FreeMason]

Are you reviewing it now?

I've got my people on it man, don't worry.




(CNSNews.com) – Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) predicted on Thursday that none of his Senate colleagues would "have the chance" to read the entire final version of the $790-billion stimulus bill before the bill comes up for a final vote in Congress.

“No, I don’t think anyone will have the chance to [read the entire bill],” Lautenberg told CNSNews.com.

When CNSNews.com asked members of both parties on Capitol Hill on Thursday whether they had read the full, final bill, not one member could say, "Yes."

Both Republicans and Democrats told CNSNews.com they were eager to read the unseen bill--once they could get get their hands on a copy of the final legislation.

Nonetheless, members from both sides of the aisle in both the House and Senate admitted they doubted they would have adequate time to read the bill before they actually voted for it.http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43478

[ChumpDumper]

I've got my people on it man, don't worry.Who?

[johnsmith]

Are you reviewing it now?

So you're ok with the way this is being handled?

[FreeMason]

Who?

Freemason-His people privilege, sorry.

[ChumpDumper]

So you're ok with the way this is being handled?It's being handled the way things are always handled in Washington. Feigning indignance about it now is simply bitching from a party firmly out of power.

I'd be pissed too if my party was that impotent, but it's pretty stupid to expect anything else. Like I said before, all Republicans can do now is pray the economy gets worse in the next two years.

[ChumpDumper]

Freemason-His people privilege, sorry.So no one. You don't really care that much outside of being able to bitch about something political.

[johnsmith]

It's being handled the way things are always handled in Washington. Feigning indignance about it now is simply bitching from a party firmly out of power.

I'd be pissed too if my party was that impotent, but it's pretty stupid to expect anything else. Like I said before, all Republicans can do now is pray the economy gets worse in the next two years.

So you're ok with the way this is being handled?

[ChumpDumper]

So you're ok with the way this is being handled?I'm never fully ok with the way things are handled in Washington. My expectations have been low ever since I started voting and actually paid attention to the process. You guys have very high expectations for the Democrats compared to the shit you championed the past eight years. It's cute.

[johnsmith]

I'm never fully ok with the way things are handled in Washington. My expectations have been low ever since I started voting and actually paid attention to the process.

It's a simple yes or no question. Why do you have so much trouble answering yes or no?

[ChumpDumper]

It's a simple yes or no question. Why do you have so much trouble answering yes or no?No.

[johnsmith]

No.

See what I did there.

And take note everyone else, it only took a couple of posts to answer the question, rather then the 30 chump usually has to ask of everyone else before they never answer his questions.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol I thought "never" was good enough.

[Gino]

I'm never fully ok with the way things are handled in Washington. My expectations have been low ever since I started voting and actually paid attention to the process. You guys have very high expectations for the Democrats compared to the shit you championed the past eight years. It's cute.

Not as cute as the 25% increase in federal spending the Dems are proposing in their first month.

Shouldnt expectations be high when youre borrowing that much money on behalf of tax payers?

[RandomGuy]

Feigning indignance about it now is simply bitching from a party firmly out of power.


Yup.

I don't expect every effing campaign promise to be carried through, and anybody who does needs a reality check.

I also don't expect everything to change for the better 100% overnight.

It's been less than a month, and republibots are already jumping up and down screeching about "lookie, lookie they aren't living up to every one of the promises in the election".

I am pretty pumped about the general movement that has been made on a host of things, such as committing to close Gitmo, and trying to end the culture of secrecy left over from the previous scumbags running the executive branch.

No one should expect to be 100% happy with everything that goes on, but as long as some fair measure of progress is being made, I think we can afford a bit of patience.

[ChumpDumper]

Not as cute as the 25% increase in federal spending the Dems are proposing in their first month.Had Republicans previously proved themselves the party of fiscal responsibility, you might have a point.


Shouldnt expectations be high when youre borrowing that much money on behalf of tax payers?If you aren't currently reading the bill, what is your point here?

[RandomGuy]

UPDATE: The Democrats finally made the bill's language available around 11 p.m. Thursday, approximately 10 hours before members meet Friday to consider the bill and 38 hours short of the time promised Americans to review the bill.

Tell me again how much lead time the GOP-controlled congress gave when posting bills to be considered. I must have missed that part somewhere.

[johnsmith]

Tell me again how much lead time the GOP-controlled congress gave when posting bills to be considered. I must have missed that part somewhere.

So according to you, if the last scumbags that you root against did it, it's ok if the scumbags your root for did it?

That makes sense.

[johnsmith]

Yup.

I don't expect every effing campaign promise to be carried through, and anybody who does needs a reality check.

I also don't expect everything to change for the better 100% overnight.

It's been less than a month, and republibots are already jumping up and down screeching about "lookie, lookie they aren't living up to every one of the promises in the election".

I am pretty pumped about the general movement that has been made on a host of things, such as committing to close Gitmo, and trying to end the culture of secrecy left over from the previous scumbags running the executive branch.

No one should expect to be 100% happy with everything that goes on, but as long as some fair measure of progress is being made, I think we can afford a bit of patience.

But you're ok with this right?

[101A]

It's being handled the way things are always handled in Washington. Feigning indignance about it now is simply bitching from a party firmly out of power.

I'd be pissed too if my party was that impotent, but it's pretty stupid to expect anything else. Like I said before, all Republicans can do now is pray the economy gets worse in the next two years.

Because power is more important that the country?

Oh, that's right. It is to you, being a flag-waver for the Democrats and all.

I hope the economy improves. I hope the country does better; that people are put to work, and that Obama has a great, successful presidency. I, however, believe that the stimulus package being passed now (what I know of it) is not going to allow any of that - and will prolong the increasingly desperate situation we find ourselves in - much as FDR's policies did 75 years ago.

[101A]

... and trying to end the culture of secrecy left over from the previous scumbags running the executive branch.



Do tell how this has been implemented, rather than simply championed....this administration is not off to the most "open" of starts; lobbyists on board when they were specifically forbidden, etc.....

I guess when words are more important that actions (which seems to be pretty much status quo with you lefties)....well, yeah, NONE of these bazillion social programs ever actually do much to FIX what they are aimed at, but we meant wel......

[101A]

So according to you, if the last scumbags that you root against did it, it's ok if the scumbags your root for did it?

That makes sense.

Bingo.

[ChumpDumper]

Because power is more important that the country?It certainly has been the case for Republicans.


Oh, that's right. It is to you, being a flag-waver for the Democrats and all.Nah, I just want some competence. I would have taken it from Republicans, but they fucked up in almost every way imaginable the past 10 years.


I hope the economy improves. I hope the country does better; that people are put to work, and that Obama has a great, successful presidency. I, however, believe that the stimulus package being passed now (what I know of it) is not going to allow any of that - and will prolong the increasingly desperate situation we find ourselves in - much as FDR's policies did 75 years ago.What specifically will prolong our current situation?

[101A]

What specifically will prolong our current situation?

Massive, uncontrolled, deficit spending.

More centralized control of the economy.

[ChumpDumper]

Massive, uncontrolled, deficit spending.We already had that. You just didn't notice.


More centralized control of the economy.Deregulation worked so well the past couple of years, didn't it?

[101A]

We already had that. You just didn't notice.

Deregulation worked so well the past couple of years, didn't it?

I noticed, I didn't like it; still don't - this bill, however, is unprecedented - new levels not seen before.

You got anything GOOD to say about THIS bill, or just shots at Republicans?

Your act is still tired, Chump. Same old crap for years and years, one liner digs at Republicans. Cherry picking, yadda, yadda yadda.

Your boy won!!! Gonna fix everything, right? Be happy, back him up; tell us how what HE's doing is SO much better than what GW did - 'cause from what I can tell, it's just more of the same.

Govt. grew like CRAZY under Republcan rule, and it brought us to this point; now it's gonna grow even more, but you think it's different because there is a different mascot on the flag! What's NOT changing is the vast expansion of govt that Bush and co - with unchecked control of all branches of govt. gave us.

Massive dollars pouring into Washington, and out of Washington has never been tried? Is new and different? Really? Haven't we tried this before? Can you post ANY columns that say this "stimulus" package is going to do what your boy says it's going to do? I have looked for them, and even the left leaning economists say this is far more pet project laden, than stimulus laden. Tax credits ONLY if you buy a plug-in hybrid? GMAFB.

Tell me what YOU like about this, Chump (cue the "I like it because you don't") response. Tell us why YOU think it will work. Go out on a limb. Have an actual opinion for once.

[clambake]

republicans have made this too easy.

[FreeMason]

So no one. You don't really care that much outside of being able to bitch about something political.

Frankly sir, it's above my pay grade. :rollin

How come these lines from your politicians work on you, but I can't use them? :(

[FreeMason]

It's being handled the way things are always handled in Washington.

ummmmm, this was pretty much what The Messiah was campaigning against.

Obama is a fraud. Say it Mr ChumpDumpster.

[Gino]

We already had that. You just didn't notice.

Deregulation worked so well the past couple of years, didn't it?

Ah yea, the proverbial "deregulation" talking point.

Of course the only piece of deregulation that led to this mess happened before Bush came to office:


Clinton ushered out the Glass-Steagall Act and signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which exempted credit-default swaps from regulation. He also loosened housing rules, putting added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods. None of it was an endorsement of permissive lending and risk-taking. But if you believe deregulation is to blame for our troubles, then Clinton earned a share too.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877322,00.html

But keep up with the childish "ITS ALL YOUR FAULT" garbage, chumpdumper. Just further demonstrates you get your facts from Ganene Garafalo.

[FreeMason]

Yup.

I don't expect every effing campaign promise to be carried through, and anybody who does needs a reality check.

I also don't expect everything to change for the better 100% overnight.

It's been less than a month, and republibots are already jumping up and down screeching about "lookie, lookie they aren't living up to every one of the promises in the election".

I am pretty pumped about the general movement that has been made on a host of things, such as committing to close Gitmo, and trying to end the culture of secrecy left over from the previous scumbags running the executive branch.

No one should expect to be 100% happy with everything that goes on, but as long as some fair measure of progress is being made, I think we can afford a bit of patience.

Ending the culture of secrecy!!?!?!?!?!

ahahahhahaaha. Random, you seem like a smart dude but you are so blinded.

[clambake]

you guys had complete controll of the govt. in every aspect. did i forget to say thanks?

[101A]

republicans have made this too easy.

This we agree on.

Reblicans created the environment in which the Democrats could, in one grab, make a play for power and cetralization in a heated rush like this....

Oh well, gonna find me a fiddle.

[FreeMason]

Deregulation worked so well the past couple of years, didn't it?

It worked for many of the current dems who dipped their government hand in the "deregulated market" LOLOLOLOL

C'mon Chump.

[Gino]

Ending the culture of secrecy!!?!?!?!?!

ahahahhahaaha. Random, you seem like a smart dude but you are so blinded.

No joke. Someone ask "Mr Transparency" why theyre moving the census from the commerce department to the white house for the first time in 200 years.

[ChumpDumper]

I noticed, I didn't like it; still don't - this bill, however, is unprecedented - new levels not seen before.

You got anything GOOD to say about THIS bill, or just shots at Republicans?Lots of good spending in the bill.


Your act is still tired, Chump. Same old crap for years and years, one liner digs at Republicans. Cherry picking, yadda, yadda yadda.Same as you. Why do you get upset when the tactics you use are used on you?


Your boy won!!! Gonna fix everything, right? Be happy, back him up; tell us how what HE's doing is SO much better than what GW did - 'cause from what I can tell, it's just more of the same.Well, that's because you're kind of dumb. As far as I can tell, Obama has been president less than a month. You've already written his political obituary as well as America's financial obituary. Good for you.

[pquote]Govt. grew like CRAZY under Republcan rule, and it brought us to this point; now it's gonna grow even more, but you think it's different because there is a different mascot on the flag! What's NOT changing is the vast expansion of govt that Bush and co - with unchecked control of all branches of govt. gave us.[/quote]It's different because everyone expects it to grow right now, and it just so happens that that's what is needed right now. It's not my fault that the Republicans spent the wrong amount on the wrong things at the wrong time.


Massive dollars pouring into Washington, and out of Washington has never been tried? Is new and different? Really? Haven't we tried this before? Can you post ANY columns that say this "stimulus" package is going to do what your boy says it's going to do?He's not my boy, and yes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20090213/pl_bloomberg/ayup3lf2lxye

You're welcome.


Tell me what YOU like about this, Chump (cue the "I like it because you don't") response. Tell us why YOU think it will work. Go out on a limb. Have an actual opinion for once.:lol "for once."

I like the immediate unemployment and food stamp funding. That's immediate and efficient stimulus.

I like the infrastructure funding in general.

I don't like the one-time tax rebate. Taxes should be generally lowered for a two or three years.

I like the grants to states, but of course much of those results depends on the state. Texas, for example, shouldn't be using the money for frisbee golf course in Austin when something like the light rail system is currently over budget.

Shall I go on or were you hoping I wouldn't answer?

[ChumpDumper]

Ah yea, the proverbial "deregulation" talking point.

Of course the only piece of deregulation that led to this mess happened before Bush came to office:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877322,00.html:lol

Deregulation need not be passed by congress. It's nice that you show your ignorance every time you post. It makes things so easy.


But keep up with the childish "ITS ALL YOUR FAULT" garbage, chumpdumper. Just further demonstrates you get your facts from Ganene Garafalo.Who?

[FreeMason]

Speaking of ending the culture of secrecy, why can't Obama just appoint every government liberal in the country into his cabinet. The found tax faults alone could fund the stimulus bill.

[101A]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20090213/pl_bloomberg/ayup3lf2lxye



That's a report by a reporter, not a column. Looking for an opinion from someone, not a report by someone repeating WH or Congressional talking points, but fine.


I like the immediate unemployment and food stamp funding. That's immediate and efficient stimulus.


Now THAT'S what I'm talking about, something we can debate.

I agree, that is immediate funding - our govt. borrowing money to infuse it into the economy to get the economy rolling. Good. What sectors of the economy are those "stimulus" items aimed at exactly? What type of economic activity do they encourage. Taking the axiom, or truism, that "you get what you pay for" at face value, they encourage poverty and unemployment! Bullly for us. THAT'S EXACTLY what we need more of!!!


I like the infrastructure funding in general.

Even though I don't live in Minnesota, I agree with this.


I don't like the one-time tax rebate. Taxes should be generally lowered for a two or three years.


We are in lock step here.



I like the grants to states, but of course much of those results depends on the state. Texas, for example, shouldn't be using the money for frisbee golf course in Austin when something like the light rail system is currently over budget.

You're starting to side they a veritable right wing ideologue, think I'm gonna pee myself.


Shall I go on or were you hoping I wouldn't answer?

Thrilled you answered, thanks.

[DarrinS]

http://criticalmass.blogs.citypaper.net/blogs/mu/files/2008/04/rainkane2.jpg

+

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v176/copygodd/16_25_042805_wilbanks_jennifer_35.jpg


=


http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20090212/i/r1447313307.jpg?x=243&y=345&q=85&sig=XKXNiqaUxmYVEOxp6j8dgA--

[ChumpDumper]

That's a report by a reporter, not a column. Looking for an opinion from someone, not a report by someone repeating WH or Congressional talking points, but fine.Actually the reporter talked to economists, but thanks for at least pretending to read it.


Now THAT'S what I'm talking about, something we can debate.

I agree, that is immediate funding - our govt. borrowing money to infuse it into the economy to get the economy rolling. Good. What sectors of the economy are those "stimulus" items aimed at exactly? What type of economic activity do they encourage. Taking the axiom, or truism, that "you get what you pay for" at face value, they encourage poverty and unemployment! Bullly for us. THAT'S EXACTLY what we need more of!!!Folks on unemployment are going to be spending money on things they paid for with part of their salary when they were employed. You know, things like food and housing. They would be encouraged to work if they actually had a job.


Even though I don't live in Minnesota, I agree with this.There are bridges where you live too.


We are in lock step here.Huzzah.


You're starting to side they a veritable right wing ideologue, think I'm gonna pee myself.Nah, ideologues would say something like, "this bill is horrible" and nothing else.


Thrilled you answered, thanks.Sure thing, pee pants.

[101A]

Damn Pelosi looks BAD in that pic.

[101A]

Actually the reporter talked to economists, but thanks for at least pretending to read it.

'welcome


Folks on unemployment are going to be spending money on things they paid for with part of their salary when they were employed. You know, things like food and housing. They would be encouraged to work if they actually had a job.

Ideological difference of opinion, but your side won, gotta live with it. Stimulus should stimulate what we need; manufacturing, construction, hell, I'm even for the "green" energy stuff; that stuff gets rolling, jobs are created. BORROWING money to pay for people to NOT work encourages people to NOT work - to me not a sound investment.


There are bridges where you live too.

""

Huzzah.


Nah, partisans would say something like, "this bill is horrible" and nothing else.

fixed


Sure thing, pee pants.


ahhhhhhhhh.

[ChumpDumper]

Ideological difference of opinion, but your side won, gotta live with it. Stimulus should stimulate what we need; manufacturing, construction, hell, I'm even for the "green" energy stuff; that stuff gets rolling, jobs are created. BORROWING money to pay for people to NOT work encourages people to NOT work - to me not a sound investment.The jobs generated by any bill do not begin instantly. What do these people do while there is NO work?

[101A]

The jobs generated by any bill do not begin instantly. What do these people do while there is NO work?

Don't have all the answers...but life on unemployment goes on too long, and is, frankly too comfortable (don't slam me for that - it's an opinion, and I understand fully how much one collects on unemployment - my wife was laid off once.) There is too much of an incentive to NOT find a job - because many times the jobs available don't pay as much as your old job, and barely pay more than unemployment. A person NOT working should not make nearly, and certainly not MORE THAN someone still punching a time clock.

Rather than unemployment, give tax credits to companies (or even individuals) for hiring - that encourages what we ACTUALLY want to happen.

[RandomGuy]

Tell me again how much lead time the GOP-controlled congress gave when posting bills to be considered. I must have missed that part somewhere.



So according to you, if the last scumbags that you root against did it, it's ok if the scumbags your root for did it?

That makes sense.

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.

[ChumpDumper]

Don't have all the answers...but life on unemployment goes on too long, and is, frankly too comfortable (don't slam me for that - it's an opinion, and I understand fully how much one collects on unemployment - my wife was laid off once.) There is too much of an incentive to NOT find a job - because many times the jobs available don't pay as much as your old job, and barely pay more than unemployment. A person NOT working should not make nearly, and certainly not MORE THAN someone still punching a time clock.

Rather than unemployment, give tax credits to companies (or even individuals) for hiring - that encourages what we ACTUALLY want to happen.I think you are getting unemployment mixed up with welfare. Unemployment only lasts 26 weeks -- possibly 39 with a new extension.

[RandomGuy]

But you're ok with this right?

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.

[RandomGuy]

... and trying to end the culture of secrecy left over from the previous scumbags running the executive branch.


Do tell how this has been implemented, rather than simply championed....this administration is not off to the most "open" of starts; lobbyists on board when they were specifically forbidden, etc.....

I guess when words are more important that actions (which seems to be pretty much status quo with you lefties)....well, yeah, NONE of these bazillion social programs ever actually do much to FIX what they are aimed at, but we meant wel......

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?

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.

[RandomGuy]

No joke. Someone ask "Mr Transparency" why theyre moving the census from the commerce department to the white house for the first time in 200 years.

:lmao

The commerce department is part of which of the three branches of government?

[101A]

I think you are getting unemployment mixed up with welfare. Unemployment only lasts 26 weeks -- possibly 39 with a new extension.

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.

[101A]

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?

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.

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.

[ChumpDumper]

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.Not everyone gets paid that amount.

[doobs]

:lmao

The commerce department is part of which of the three branches of government?

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.

[101A]

Not everyone gets paid that amount.

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.

[101A]

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.


He's got a point, RG.

[Crookshanks]

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! :lmao

This whole thing stinks to high heaven - but thankfully, the stink is all on the democrats!

[ChumpDumper]

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.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.

[MannyIsGod]

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 shit people are bitching 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 shitty 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.

[101A]

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.

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.

[MannyIsGod]

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.

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.

[MannyIsGod]

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.

Food stamps = wealth transfer now? Thats funny.

[RandomGuy]

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.

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/2009/02/sen_gregg_withdraws_as_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 bullshit.

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.'"
:lmao


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/ap_on_go_ot/census_politics


:jekka

Keep drinking the cool-aid, because it worked so well for the Republicans so far...

[RandomGuy]

He's got a point, RG.

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.

[doobs]

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.

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 bullshit.

[ChumpDumper]

Job Creation increases productivity - makes the pie bigger for all of us.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.:lol It's money and food for people without jobs.

Your wife needs to give her money back now.

[RandomGuy]

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/washington/24cnd-justice.html


In 2002, many deselections were required because of budget
constraints. The data showed that candidates with Democratic Party
and liberal affiliations apparent on their applications were deselected at
a significantly higher rate than candidates with Republican Party,
conservative, or neutral affiliations. This pattern continued to exist
when we compared a ...


The documentary 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.

Full text available:
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0806/final.pdf

[ChumpDumper]

Except for purely political reasons, I can see no good reason why Obama insists on effectively moving the Census Bureau into the White House.That's great, because it isn't being moved into the White House.


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 bullshit.What are you afraid of here?

[clambake]

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.

[RandomGuy]

Except for purely political reasons, I can see no good reason why Obama insists on effectively moving the Census Bureau into the White House.

Please provide a source statement from the White House that supports this.

[MannyIsGod]

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 bullshit.

LOL the move. The move amounts to a statement which pretty much changes nothing other than try to calm down the Black Congressional Caucus.

"Hey guys, I'm going to work closely with the department thats under me to do this job. Have a Nice day"

"ZOMG YOU'RE YOU'RE MAKING THE CENSUS POLITICAL! TOM DELAY!! TOM DELAY!!!"

[RandomGuy]

That's great, because it isn't being moved into the White House.

But, but, but, I read it on Fox News... it must be true!

:rolleyes

[MannyIsGod]

Please provide a source statement from the White House that supports this.

Exactly he's fucking retarded. I'm not even sure he's seem the statement he's so up in arms about.

Timeline

1. Gregg gets nominated
2. Black Congresspeople say "OMG HE'S NOT GOING TO COUNT BLACKS"
3. Obama says "I'M BLACK AND I'M GOING TO WORK CLOSELY WITH THEM"
4. GOP Congerss "ZOMG POLITICS!"
5. Gregg "I NEED TO SAVE FACE!! CENSUS!!!"
6. Doobs "ZOMG DON'T COUNT PEOPLE IN THE WHITE HOUSE!!! DELAY!!!"

[doobs]

That's great, because it isn't being moved into the White House.


You know what I mean. I was speaking figuratively about it being in the White House. I know it isn't physically or formally moving into the White House. Obama seems to want more control over the Census Bureau, and I think it's for purely political reasons.


What are you afraid of here?

I mentioned Tom DeLay for a reason. I personally don't know why Obama wants control over the Census. If there is a legitimate reason, I would like to know. Seriously, why does he care about the Census Bureau reporting directly to him (and Rahm Emanuel)? Could it be that 2010 is just around the corner? Perhaps it has something to do with redistricting. That's my concern.

Chicago politics.

[RandomGuy]

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.)

For something that wasn't illegal, the administration officials involved are awfully tight-lipped about it.

It's kind of hard to tell if it was or wasn't illegal because there was such stone-walling on the part of the Bush administration about it.

[ChumpDumper]

You know what I mean. I was speaking figuratively about it being in the White House. I know it isn't physically or formally moving into the White House. Obama seems to want more control over the Census Bureau, and I think it's for purely political reasons.



I mentioned Tom DeLay for a reason. I personally don't know why Obama wants control over the Census. If there is a legitimate reason, I would like to know. Seriously, why does he care about the Census Bureau reporting directly to him (and Rahm Emanuel)? Could it be that 2010 is just around the corner? Perhaps it has something to do with redistricting. That's my concern.

Chicago politics.So you don't know why, but Chicago politics!

[doobs]

For something that wasn't illegal, the administration officials involved are awfully tight-lipped about it.

It's kind of hard to tell if it was or wasn't illegal because there was such stone-walling on the part of the Bush administration about it.

Just stop right there. Do you know why no one claimed it was illegal? BECAUSE IT WASN'T.

It was still shitty, however.

[RandomGuy]

You know what I mean. I was speaking figuratively about it being in the White House. I know it isn't physically or formally moving into the White House.

Please provide a source statement from the White House that supports this statement.

[doobs]

So you don't know why, but Chicago politics!

I think I just explained my concern to you. Big kids can read.

[doobs]

Please provide a source statement from the White House that supports this statement.

What the hell are you talking about?

[MannyIsGod]

I mentioned Tom DeLay for a reason. I personally don't know why Obama wants control over the Census. If there is a legitimate reason, I would like to know. Seriously, why does he care about the Census Bureau reporting directly to him (and Rahm Emanuel)? Could it be that 2010 is just around the corner? Perhaps it has something to do with redistricting. That's my concern.

Chicago politics.

So you don't know whats going on? Well thats a surprise Doobs. I mean really. Pretty hard to get more control over a department you fully control.

[RandomGuy]

Just stop right there. Do you know why no one claimed it was illegal? BECAUSE IT WASN'T.

It was still shitty, however.


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/washington/24cnd-justice.html


In 2002, many deselections were required because of budget
constraints. The data showed that candidates with Democratic Party
and liberal affiliations apparent on their applications were deselected at
a significantly higher rate than candidates with Republican Party,
conservative, or neutral affiliations. This pattern continued to exist
when we compared a ...


The documentary 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.

Full text available:
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0806/final.pdf

-------------------

Just in case you missed it the first time. This is above and beyond the attorney firings.

[ChumpDumper]

I think I just explained my concern to you. Big kids can read.


I personally don't know why Obama wants control over the Census.Chicago politics!

[MannyIsGod]

The White House announced its decision last week (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/02/05/census_director_to_report_to_w.html), as minority groups raised concerns about Gregg’s past opposition to Census funding. Obama administration staffers said the decision was based in part on historical precedence during the Clinton administration.
“As they have in the past, White House senior management will work closely with the Census Director given the number of decisions that will need to reach the President’s desk," White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said in a written statement.
"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://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/02/_sen_judd_gregg_said.html?hpid=topnews

[RandomGuy]

What the hell are you talking about?



Except for purely political reasons, I can see no good reason why Obama insists on effectively moving the Census Bureau into the White House.

Please provide a source statement from the White House that supports this.

Your claim, your burden of proof. I want to see what statement/plan from the Obama administration you base this statement on.

[MannyIsGod]

chicago politics!

lol

[doobs]

Please provide a source statement from the White House that supports this.

Your claim, your burden of proof. I want to see what statement/plan from the Obama administration you base this statement on.

I don't know what you want from me. All I said was that Obama wants more control over Census, and that I was speaking figuratively about the Census moving to the White House.

So I have the temerity to ask questions about Obama's decisions, and you want to jump all over me? How about actually discussing why he wants to do what he's doing?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123423384887066377.html

Now, please explain to me a good reason for Obama's plan to have the Census Bureau report directly to him. I really just want to know, but my suspicion, my concern, is that he's playing politics with the census.

That's all.

[doobs]

Chicago politics!

Read it again. My concern is a DeLay-style gerrymander. What is your opinion? Why do you think Obama is doing this? I would really like to know.

[RandomGuy]

I don't know what you want from me. All I said was that Obama wants more control over Census, and that I was speaking figuratively about the Census moving to the White House.

So I have the temerity to ask questions about Obama's decisions, and you want to jump all over me? How about actually discussing why he wants to do what he's doing?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123423384887066377.html

Now, please explain to me a good reason for Obama's plan to have the Census Bureau report directly to him. I really just want to know, but my suspicion, my concern, is that he's playing politics with the census.

That's all.

FAIL.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL OP-ED PAGE, LAST TIME I CHECKED, WAS NOT PART OF THE WHITE HOUSE.

I read the article, and nowhere in that article did they attribute any quote to the white house either. I would accept a quote in that article if they actually had bothered to tell me what they based THEIR statements and analysis on.



Except for purely political reasons, I can see no good reason why Obama insists on effectively moving the Census Bureau into the White House.

Please provide a source statement from the White House that supports this.

Your claim, your burden of proof. I want to see what statement/plan from the Obama administration you base this statement on.

[ChumpDumper]

Read it again. My concern is a DeLay-style gerrymander.Since districts are drawn by state legislatures, that won't be a problem.
What is your opinion? Why do you think Obama is doing this? I would really like to know.Seems like there were already a lot of new ideas in the pipeline for the census regarding techniques and technology, and I'm sure the Obama administration has even more. Is it a bad thing for a president to want to know what's going on with the census?

[RandomGuy]

But statisticians at the Commerce Department didn't think it would mean having the director of next year's Census report directly to the White House rather than to the Commerce secretary, as is customary.

I didn't see any quote marks or attribution to what was actually said.

Keep digging cool-aid boy, because unless you can show that your statement is based on what the White House actually said or proposed, and not on what Fox News told you to believe, you don't get to claim this.

[RandomGuy]

Is it a bad thing for a president to want to know what's going on with the census?

It is if that president is a Democrat, apparently. :lol

[doobs]

FAIL.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL OP-ED PAGE, LAST TIME I CHECKED, WAS NOT PART OF THE WHITE HOUSE.

I read the article, and nowhere in that article did they attribute any quote to the white house either. I would accept a quote in that article if they actually had bothered to tell me what they based THEIR statements and analysis on.



Please provide a source statement from the White House that supports this.

Your claim, your burden of proof. I want to see what statement/plan from the Obama administration you base this statement on.

I still don't know what you want from me. What claim do I need to prove?

[101A]

Food stamps = wealth transfer now? Thats funny.


By definition, Manny.

And this isn't a "Woe is the Rich Guy" argument - not talking class warfare, here.

Take from one person, give to another = transfer.

As opposed to production.

[ChumpDumper]

By definition, Manny.

And this isn't a "Woe is the Rich Guy" argument - not talking class warfare, here.

Take from one person, give to another = transfer.

As opposed to production.The US lost 600,000 jobs last month.

How are you instantly going replace those jobs?

[MannyIsGod]

By definition, Manny.

And this isn't a "Woe is the Rich Guy" argument - not talking class warfare, here.

Take from one person, give to another = transfer.

As opposed to production.

......

You guys make my head hurt sometimes.

[RandomGuy]

I still don't know what you want from me. What claim do I need to prove?



Obama insists on effectively moving the Census Bureau into the White House.

[MannyIsGod]

i still don't know what you want from me. What claim do i need to prove?

lol

[doobs]

Since districts are drawn by state legislatures, that won't be a problem.Seems like there were already a lot of new ideas in the pipeline for the census regarding techniques and technology, and I'm sure the Obama administration has even more. Is it a bad thing for a president to want to know what's going on with the census?

Really? You don't think that the addition or subtraction of congressional districts to some states couldn't be a problem? Is there a conceivable political motive behind a politician trying to "know what's going on with the census"?

And what about the expenditure of funds to certain districts based on census data?

Obama may have a good reason to change the way the Census operates. I haven't heard it.

Look, the Census should, in theory, be insulated from political pressures, for the very reasons I have mentioned. Giving someone like Rahm Emanuel some kind of supervisory role over the Census seems to be a strange decision . . . unless you consider the obvious political motive. I think there's good reason to be concerned.

I want a good reason. Saying "is it a bad thing for a president to want to know what's going on with the census?" is not a reason.

[RandomGuy]

......

You guys make my head hurt sometimes.

He is essentially correct.

The original source of funds for food stamps is taxes, and those taxes stem from a variety of sources, mostly through individual and corporate income.

Those funds are then allocated by law to the ultimate recipients.

Personally, I don't have a problem with it, as it is in no-ones best interest to allow outright starvation in this country.

The missing piece of the puzzle for a lot of conservatives is, as I have pointed out, that we are waaay more interrelated than they seem to realize.

[ChumpDumper]

Really? You don't think that the addition or subtraction of congressional districts to some states couldn't be a problem? Is there a conceivable political motive behind a politician trying to "know what's going on with the census"?

And what about the expenditure of funds to certain districts based on census data?

Obama may have a good reason to change the way the Census operates. I haven't heard it.

Look, the Census should, in theory, be insulated from political pressures, for the very reasons I have mentioned. Giving someone like Rahm Emanuel some kind of supervisory role over the Census seems to be a strange decision . . . unless you consider the obvious political motive. I think there's good reason to be concerned.

I want a good reason. Saying "is it a bad thing for a president to want to know what's going on with the census?" is not a reason.I already gave you a good reason. You just don't want to hear it. You are just a partisan hack who wants to gainsay anything someone with a D after his name says or does.

I want to hear a good reason why anyone would be concerned. "I personally don't know why Obama wants control over the Census." is not a reason.

[doobs]

I already gave you a good reason. You just don't want to hear it. You are just a partisan hack who wants to gainsay anything someone with a D after his name says or does.

I want to hear a good reason why anyone would be concerned. "I personally don't know why Obama wants control over the Census." is not a reason.

That's bullshit. Now you're just calling names. "Partisan hack"? Dude, Republicans suck ass, too. The fact that I disagree with Obama or don't think he's some sort of well-meaning saint doesn't make me a partisan hack.

Seriously, what's the legitimate reason? I've given you plenty of reasons for concern. Tell me why I shouldn't be concerned. From what I can tell, your argument is, essentially, that we should just trust that Obama is well-meaning. Or that he has ideas, or something.

[MannyIsGod]

LOL He seriously doesn't get it. WOW.

[MannyIsGod]

Doobs, just to help you out here. No one is disputing the notion that the White House taking control of the Census would be politicizing it and generally poor. The dispute is that there is no proof thats happening other than people reading far too much into a statement meant to calm people down. You just picked it up and ran with it like a fool.

[ChumpDumper]

That's bullshit. Now you're just calling names. "Partisan hack"? Dude, Republicans suck ass, too. The fact that I disagree with Obama or don't think he's some sort of well-meaning saint doesn't make me a partisan hack.

Seriously, what's the legitimate reason? I've given you plenty of reasons for concern. Tell me why I shouldn't be concerned. From what I can tell, your argument is, essentially, that we should just trust that Obama is well-meaning. Or that he has ideas, or something.No you haven't given me any legitimate reason to be concerned. Your argument is, essentially, "Chicago politics!"

[RandomGuy]

Doobs, just to help you out here. No one is disputing the notion that the White House taking control of the Census would be politicizing it and generally poor. The dispute is that there is no proof thats happening other than people reading far too much into a statement meant to calm people down. You just picked it up and ran with it like a fool.

Pretty much.

As Confucious says:

"He who reads Fox News and believes he is getting the whole truth deserves to be spanked on the internet"

At least, I'm pretty sure it was Confucious that said that...

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I'm never fully ok with the way things are handled in Washington. My expectations have been low ever since I started voting and actually paid attention to the process. You guys have very high expectations for the Democrats compared to the shit you championed the past eight years. It's cute.

It's sad, I used to respect your takes. But this is pretty pathetic.

What happened to all that hope and change stuff, shouldn't change be more than which side is lining its pockets?

[ChumpDumper]

Look, I understand that Republicans and those who pretend to not be Republicans are scared shitless about a more accurate census, but if you are telling me that Obama has just announced in advance that he is going to be changing the figures once he gets them, I grant you a hearty lol.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Doobs, just to help you out here. No one is disputing the notion that the White House taking control of the Census would be politicizing it and generally poor. The dispute is that there is no proof thats happening other than people reading far too much into a statement meant to calm people down. You just picked it up and ran with it like a fool.

Of course, by the time there's proof that's what Rahm's doing, it will be too late.

To advance the other side of that weak logic of yours, there is no proof that's not happening other than people who have their heads up Obama's rear drinking the Obama koolaid that everything's on the up and up.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Look, I understand that Republicans and those who pretend to not be Republicans are scared shitless about a more accurate census, but if you are telling me that Obama has just announced in advance that he is going to be changing the figures once he gets them, I grant you a hearty lol.

What evidence do you have it hasn't been accurate?

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

Man, you guys are so sad.

[ChumpDumper]

It's sad, I used to respect your takes. But this is pretty pathetic.

What happened to all that hope and change stuff, shouldn't change be more than which side is lining its pockets?Sorry I burst your idealistic bubble. I don't have much faith in politicians, period -- I'm just glad the Republicans are out of power for awhile. They really sucked. I had no big problem with Bush until he started a completely unnecessary war. I have no big problem with Obama currently.

If you show me a congressman/senator/president who gives up the perks of his/her office, I will vote for that person every time. Otherwise, yes, they are all lining their pockets one way or another. The best hope is something productive gets done in the meantime. Wasn't happening with the Republicans, so we'll try this for awhile.

[101A]

The US lost 600,000 jobs last month.

How are you instantly going replace those jobs?

It's not possible to.

Increases unemployment benefits certainly doesn't create jobs; it does the opposite. What is the goal? To create jobs, or to make sure people get paid?

Why doesn't the govt. just write a $50K check to every household in the country and do away with pay altogether? Why does anyone need to work at all? Maybe Haight-Ashbury had it right after all?

Obviously a rhetorical question, and we all know the answer, but unemployment is simply a degree of that philosophy, isn't it?

And again, I did NOT say that I was against all unemployment payments, in fact, as I have mentioned, my family has been the recipient of them; but they are not "stimulus".

[101A]

Doobs, just to help you out here. No one is disputing the notion that the White House taking control of the Census would be politicizing it and generally poor. The dispute is that there is no proof thats happening other than people reading far too much into a statement meant to calm people down. You just picked it up and ran with it like a fool.

If this had come from Karl Rove, I'm betting you'd be pretty fervently against it.

But whatever, if they politicize it, they politicize it, what goes around, comes around.

[ChumpDumper]

What evidence do you have it hasn't been accurate?The census bureau itself has estimated significant undercounts in the past.

[101A]

Y'all have a nice weekend, off to the slopes for a nice, romant.....errr nevermind, going skiing, but have three children in tow; nothing romantic about it, but it should be fun.

[ChumpDumper]

It's not possible to.Great. Those people have to eat and pay rent in the meantime, so here we are.


Increases unemployment benefits certainly doesn't create jobs; it does the opposite. What is the goal? To create jobs, or to make sure people get paid?Immediate stimulus to the economy does create and sustain jobs.


Why doesn't the govt. just write a $50K check to every household in the country and do away with pay altogether? Why does anyone need to work at all? Maybe Haight-Ashbury had it right after all?

Obviously a rhetorical question, and we all know the answer, but unemployment is simply a degree of that philosophy, isn't it?No, not at all.


And again, I did NOT say that I was against all unemployment payments, in fact, as I have mentioned, my family has been the recipient of them; but they are not "stimulus".So now you are for it?

They absolutely have a stimulative effect on the economy, so they are indeed stimulus.

[ChumpDumper]

What evidence do you have it hasn't been accurate?In a Census, some people are not counted. In 1990 we estimated the number of people not counted by conducting a post-enumeration survey separately from the Census and comparing the findings. The net undercount for 1990 is the difference between how many people were actually counted in the 1990 census (the official count) and the estimate of how many people lived in the United States at that time (the adjusted count). The adjusted count is an estimate based on the survey and the census enumeration itself. If the adjusted count is greater than the official count, the difference is called an undercount. In a few cases, the official count is greater than the adjusted count. When that happens, we have an overcount, which we designate as a negative number. The net undercount rate is the ratio of the net undercount to the adjusted count; it is often expressed as a percent.

The data indicate that populations were undercounted at different rates. In general, Blacks, American Indians and Alaskan Natives, Asians and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics were missed at higher rates than Whites.

To cite an actual example, in the United States overall, we estimate a net undercount of about 4.0 million people in 1990, giving us an undercount rate of approximately 1.6%. The estimate for Whites is about 1.8 million, for a rate of 0.9%. However, although fewer Blacks (1.4 million) than Whites were missed, they were missed at a higher rate, approximately 4.4%. Children were also disproportionately missed in the last census. The net undercount for children - about 3.2% - is twice the overall rate.

http://www.census.gov/dmd/www//techdoc1.html

The less guessing, the better.

[MannyIsGod]

If this had come from Karl Rove, I'm betting you'd be pretty fervently against it.

But whatever, if they politicize it, they politicize it, what goes around, comes around.

If WHAT had come from Karl Rove.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

The census bureau itself has estimated significant undercounts in the past.

And somehow Rahm's going to solve this problem?

[FreeMason]

:lmao

Man, you guys are so sad.

Says the guy who got wasted on Obama Koolaid every weekend until the inauguration and now has too much falsely placed pride to admit his messiah has already proven to be a fraud in his first 3 weeks LOL!

[ChumpDumper]

And somehow Rahm's going to solve this problem?Hopefully some of the new strategies and technologies will do that.

I still don't know exactly what we are supposed to be afraid of regarding this. Even if the reporting was the same as last time, the director would still be reporting to one of Obama's people.

[FreeMason]

CvnwOjDjnH4