Reply With Quote
I dont remember Obama campaigning on a trillion dollar spending bill in his first month that included all of the junk this bill includes.
Recent polls say that America definately doesn't like this bill.
Try again.
Good article over at RealClearPolitics.com:
February 10, 2009
The President Attacks a Republican Straw Man
President Obama, as we all know, made bipartisanship a central theme of his campaign last year. Yet he was unable to pull in many Republicans on the stimulus bill. In the wake of this, some have suggested that the President's bipartisan success will be in changing the tone. This is what Alex MacGillis and Paul Kane wrote last week on the front page of the Washington Post:
But the White House did not view the rejection of Obama's initial bid at fostering bipartisanship as a stinging disappointment. Even as Obama was unable to pick up their votes, he was left with many Republicans praising his outreach. And judging by Obama's record, it is this tone of mutual respect that -- at least for now -- he may be after as much as actual votes on bills he could pass without significant GOP backing. [Snip]
When Obama called for an end to "broken and divided politics," his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), and others contended that there were few instances in Obama's career when he had made major concessions that upset fellow Democrats to reach agreement with Republicans.
But this, said some who have worked with Obama, overlooked his intent. To Obama, they said, fixing "broken politics" is less about making concessions just for the sake of finding common ground and more about elevating the debate -- replacing cynical gamesmanship and immature name-calling with intellectually honest arguments and respect for the other side's motives. In his book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama waxes nostalgic about the fellowship and vigorous debate of Congress's halcyon days in the mid-20th century more than about the centrist deals the era produced.
If this is the bipartisan direction the President intends to head in, I think that could be a good thing - and, in the long run, it could produce policy compromises as both sides begin to believe that the other is treating them in good faith.
Unfortunately, I do not think last night's press conference was helpful in achieving this goal. Time and again, I noted that the President engaged in a rhetorical maneuver commonly called "attacking a straw man." That's what you do when you mischaracterize your opponent's position, and you refute the mischaracterization rather than what your opponent really thinks.
Ed Morrissey and Mary Katharine Ham noted the same trend during the presser, and I want to take some time to amplify this point. The first instance came in his introductory remarks:
But as we've learned very clearly and conclusively over the last eight years, tax cuts alone can't solve all of our economic problems, especially tax cuts that are targeted to the wealthiest few Americans. We have tried that strategy time and time again, and it's only helped lead us to the crisis we face right now.
Who's arguing that "tax cuts alone" will solve this problem? Even if some are, is this the median position on the Republican side? Is this the position of the more moderate members of the GOP Senate caucus like Lugar, Voinovich, and Murkowski? How about moderate House Republicans like Kirk, LoBiondo, and Castle? We might count it as bipartisanship if Obama had picked up a few of them, but he didn't. Is it because this is their position? I don't think so.
The following came in his answer to AP's Jennifer Loven:
Some of the criticisms really are with the basic idea that government should intervene at all in this moment of crisis. Now, you have some people, very sincere, who philosophically just think the government has no business interfering in the marketplace. And, in fact, there are several who've suggested that FDR was wrong to interfere back in the New Deal. They're fighting battles that I thought were resolved a pretty long time ago.
Again, this characterization might be valid for a minority on the Republican side - but I have not heard anybody serious criticize the idea that the government should not intervene. George W. Bush's tax cuts early in this decade were sold in part as government intervention to ameliorate recession - and Republicans loved that. The difference between the sides is in the strategy for intervention, not the principle that the government has the authority to intervene, or that intervention is imprudent. The real debate is not whether intervention should happen, but how it should happen.
He made a similar comment in response to Chip Reid:
As I said, the one concern I've got on the stimulus package, in terms of the debate and listening to some of what's been said in Congress, is that there seems to be a set of folks who -- I don't doubt their sincerity -- who just believe that we should do nothing.
Now, if that's their opening position or their closing position in negotiations, then we're probably not going to make much progress, because I don't think that's economically sound and I don't think what -- that's what the American people expect, is for us to stand by and do nothing.
Again, who is seriously arguing that nothing should be done?
The President then said this:
There are others who recognize that we've got to do a significant recovery package, but they're concerned about the mix of what's in there. And if they're sincere about it, then I'm happy to have conversations about this tax cut versus that -- that tax cut or this infrastructure project versus that infrastructure project.
If they are sincere? This fits back into a previous comment he made (not quoted here) about "the usual political games." The implication seems to be that there is some subset of members in opposition who are insincere, who are playing the usual political games and not genuinely interested in the best bill possible.
Who fits this profile?
This is not really attacking a straw man, but it is a related rhetorical maneuver called ad hominem attack, wherein you go after personal qualities of your opponent rather than the argument s/he is making. Additionally, the attack is so vague that it is essentially unfalsifiable. He's not singling out anybody in particular, so it is impossible to refute the charge.
He then said this:
This is another concern that I've had in some of the arguments that I'm hearing. When people suggest that, "What a waste of money to make federal buildings more energy-efficient." Why would that be a waste of money?
We're creating jobs immediately by retrofitting these buildings or weatherizing 2 million Americans' homes, as was called for in the package, so that right there creates economic stimulus.
And we are saving taxpayers when it comes to federal buildings potentially $2 billion. In the case of homeowners, they will see more money in their pockets. And we're reducing our dependence on foreign oil in the Middle East. Why wouldn't we want to make that kind of investment?
Now, maybe philosophically you just don't think that the federal government should be involved in energy policy. I happen to disagree with that; I think that's the reason why we find ourselves importing more foreign oil now than we did back in the early '70s when OPEC first formed.
Is this really the opposition's argument? To my ears, they're asserting that things like this, while they might be worthy, are not stimulative - and they should be implemented via the normal legislative process.
And who thinks the federal government should not be involved in energy policy? And even if somebody did think that, how does that relate to energy efficiency in government buildings? Is there anybody arguing that because the government should not meddle in the economy to secure greater energy efficiency, they shouldn't put new windows in the J. Edgar Hoover Building? That makes no sense at all.
Finally, in his response to Mara Liasson, the President again questioned the intentions of his opposition:
Well, as I said before, Mara, I think that old habits are hard to break. And we're coming off an election, and I think people want to sort of test the limits of -- of what they can get. You know, there's a lot of jockeying in this town, and a lot of "who's up and who's down," and positioning for the next election.
One thing that I think is important is to recognize that, because all these -- all these items that you listed are hard, that people have to break out of some of the ideological rigidity and gridlock that we've been carrying around for too long.
I think there are a lot of Republicans who are sincere in recognizing that, unless we deal with en lements in a serious way, the problems we have with this year's deficit and next year's deficit pale in comparison to what we're going to be seeing 10 or 15 years or 20 years down the road.
And so when I hear people just saying, "Ah, we don't need to do anything," "This is a spending bill, not a stimulus bill," without acknowledging that, by definition, part of any stimulus package would include spending -- that's the point -- then what I get a sense of is, is that there's some ideological blockage there that needs to be cleared up.
Note the first line of the third paragraph: "a lot of Republicans" are sincere. Implication: plenty of them aren't, too. They are testing the limits, trying to get everything they can as a prelude to the next election.
The final paragraph actually links the two rhetorical maneuvers I've indicated. He mischaracterizes the Republican position, then dismisses it by saying that they are ideologically blocked (whatever that means).
So, time and again in this press conference, we saw the President mischaracterize the Republican position. That's not to say that no Republicans (or conservatives) hold the views that the President claimed they do (though I don't think anybody is opposed to modernizing government buildings!). The point is that none of these views reflect the median Republican position, let alone the "left-leaning" position of the kinds of Republicans who could be brought into a Democrat-led initiative like this stimulus bill.
Now, I've singled the President out not because he is the only politician who engages in this kind of maneuvering. Far from it! In fact, these rhetorical maneuvers are the stock in trade of debate in Washington. Politicos "win" arguments by mischaracterizing their opponents' positions and/or attacking their personal motivations. That's just how the game is played.
The problem is that - as MacGillis and Kane argue - Obama's objective is to change the tone, making it more civil. If he wants to see that happen, he needs to stop making such assertions, for all they will do is annoy the opposition. This is why I've singled the President out today - because elevating the tone means fairly (and sometimes even charitably) characterizing your opposition. That is a necessary condition for a civilized debate.
That's something I would like to see happen more often in our political debate, and the President's press conference genuinely disappointed me in that regard.
I dont remember Obama campaigning on a trillion dollar spending bill in his first month that included all of the junk this bill includes.
Recent polls say that America definately doesn't like this bill.
Try again.
obama had to take money away from bush before he took office.
you guys had to keep ing up as you left the room.
While the president puts on a full-court press, the debate over the $800 billion-plus bill -- which includes increased government spending and tax cuts -- appears to have split the public. A slight majority, 54 percent, favors the bill; 45 percent are opposed.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS...ef=mpstoryview
You try again.
He's referring to the talk radio crowd being overwhelmingly against the bill.
From your article:
No one is saying to do nothing. To say that the "public has spoken" and wants this bill to pass as presently constructed (as clambake claimed) is a complete fabrication.Sixty-four percent of those polled said the current bill being debated in the Senate would help the economy a lot or somewhat, while 36 percent felt that the package would not help the economy much or at all.
"The public may be lukewarm on the stimulus package because they only see limited benefits from it," Holland said. "Sixteen percent say it would help the economy a lot, but 48 percent foresee only some improvements if the bill passes."
Many Republican lawmakers argue that the bill is too expensive. It appears that argument may be working with Americans. Fifty-five percent of those questioned felt the price tag for the stimulus plan is too big, while three in 10 said the bill would spend the right amount of money and 13 percent felt not enough money is in the legislation.
Obama needs to stop whining.
I don't know exactly what they thought a liberal congress and president would do when they got into office.
As was said before, the Republicans shouldn't have done such a horrible job when they were in control of all branches of government -- had they not, they might be relevant now.
So 54 percent of the people are for the current bill and 64 percent think it will help the economy.
What exactly is your argument here?
I thought you were smarter than THAT.
bull
just because it could pass doesn't mean he won't trim it. grow up.To say that the "public has spoken" and wants this bill to pass as presently constructed (as clambake claimed) is a complete fabrication.
Obama needs to stop whining.you're a dumbass.
So what are you saying Republicans did while they were in control of every branch of government to merit anything more than their current power level in congress?
Its actually the truth. Why do you think they elected Obama?
My point is that MOST people want it changed just like the Republicans do.Fifty-five percent of those questioned felt the price tag for the stimulus plan is too big, while three in 10 said the bill would spend the right amount of money and 13 percent felt not enough money is in the legislation.
I find it hard to believe that the government could spend a trillion dollars and it doesnt help the economy "somewhat".
Again, Obama needs to stop whining and cut the stupid campaign rhetoric. Grow a pair and stand up to Pelosi.
nobody on earth is afraid of pelosi.
except you and rush listeners.
So Republicans are for Keynesian stimulus, they are just whining about a few percentage points of spending.
Do you realize what that means?
I find it hard to believe you don't know exactly how owned the Republicans are right now.I find it hard to believe that the government could spend a trillion dollars and it doesnt help the economy "somewhat".
Not really. All he has to do is sign the bill once it is passed. He did win, after all.Again, Obama needs to stop whining and cut the stupid campaign rhetoric. Grow a pair and stand up to Pelosi.
And Barrack.
I think most would agree he shouldnt have let the house democrats draft this bill.
I guess theres a new philosophy with the libs on the board:
"Nothing Obama ever does is wrong."
Who's whining about "a few percentage points"? Again, thats just stupid rhetoric. If it was just a few points then they would have come to a deal much sooner. The fact is that most of the bill is wastelful spending. The hyped "contruction and infrastructure" accounts for only 60 billion. Less than 10 percent.
And I dont think the Republicans are "owned" when Barrack is on TV obviously irritated that the public is agreeing with them.
I hate to break this to you, but all spending bills originate in the house.
Sure there is pork in the bill, but even Kay Bailey is talking about how Texas needs to get its hands on that money no matter what her feelings about the bill are. She's owned as well.
he'll do whatever he wants with this bill....and he'll piss off some democrats while he does it.
you're still listening to the losers.
Good analysis. Its basically setting itself up to fail.
Analysis: Stimulus bill that's not all stimulating
Associated Press Writer Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writer – Fri Jan 30, 6:05 pm
ET AP – President Barack Obama gestures as he speaks about the Middle Class Working Families Task Force, Friday, … WASHINGTON – They call it "stimulus" legislation, but the economic measures racing through Congress would devote tens of billions of dollars to causes that have little to do with jolting the country out of recession.
There's $345 million for Agriculture Department computers, $650 million for TV converter boxes, $15 billion for college scholarships — worthy, perhaps, but not likely to put many Americans back to work quickly.
Yes, there are many billions of dollars in "ready-to-go" job-creating projects in President Barack Obama's economic stimulus bill. But there are also plenty of items that are just unfinished business for Congress' old bulls.
An $800 billion-plus package, it turns out, gives lawmakers plenty of opportunities to rid themselves of nagging headaches left over from the days when running up the government's $10 trillion-plus debt was a bigger concern.
There's $1 billion to deal with Census problems and $88 million to help move the Public Health Service into a new building next year. The Senate would devote $2.1 billion to pay off a looming shortfall in public housing accounts, $870 million to combat the flu and $400 million to slow the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases such as chlamydia.
"I have communicated to the administration that there are parts of this package that don't meet the test that they themselves established of temporary, timely and targeted," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D. He wants Obama to weigh in to knock out the clunkers during House-Senate negotiations.
But nothing is in the legislation by accident. By including in the Senate stimulus bill such far-ranging ideas as $40 million to convert the way health statistics are collected — from paper to an electronic system — lawmakers are able to thin out their in-boxes, even if they aren't doing much to create jobs.
There's also $380 million in the Senate bill for a rainy day fund for the Women, Infants and Children program that delivers healthful food to the poor. WIC got the equivalent of a $1 billion infusion last fall.
At the same time, putting items in the stimulus bill that really should be handled in annual appropriations bills creates more room in the latter for pet projects and other programs.
It creates "headroom," a top Senate GOP budget aide said, for things senators didn't have room for in the regular process but still want to do.
Some lawmakers are sounding warnings.
"I suggested ... less spending and especially less spending for those items that are not stimulus and should be funded through the regular appropriations process," said Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, top Republican on the Appropriations Committee.
Part of the reason so much non-stimulus spending has made it into the stimulus bill is that there are only so many traditional jobs-heavy public works projects that can get started quickly. As it is, most of the money in the bill for road building, water projects and mass transit probably won't be spent until the economy has turned around and is back on a recovery path.
For example, just one-third of $30 billion proposed by the House for highway construction would reach the economy in the next year and a half, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Democrats are going ahead with Obama's $500 tax credit for most workers and $1,000 for couples even though there's wide agreement that last year's rebate checks weren't effective in sparking recovery.
Defenders of the package said that once experts determined it would take $800 billion to start to pull the country out of recession and emphasized the urgency, details took on less importance.
"If the house is burning, you're not going to worry about which hose you grab, so long as you get water on the fire," said Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., one of the chief authors of the House package as chairman of its appropriations committee.
But some Democrats, like Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, think the $3.5 billion in the stimulus package devoted to health research, or the $14 billion-$15 billion for boosting Pell Grant college scholarships by $400 to $500 would be better spent on additional brick and mortar infrastructure projects.
"You don't want to be against Pell Grants," Nelson said. "But the question is, how many people go to work on Pell Grants? Should it be in this legislation if it's about jobs?"
___
EDITOR'S NOTE — Andrew Taylor covers Congress and the federal budget for The Associated Press.
What is the total spending Republicans claim they want cut from the bill.
A few percent.
54 percent approve of the bill as is.And I dont think the Republicans are "owned" when Barrack is on TV obviously irritated that the public is agreeing with them.
Nothing is perfect, and Republicans can't wait to get that money for their states either. You have fallen for their posturing. Were they ever worried about wasteful spending when they were in complete control of the government?
You are TERRIBLY mistaken. Not only can the white house draft spending bills, but the senate can as well. Take for instance the Republican alternative to the stimulus drafted by the republicans in the senate.
And the white house's excuse for not drafting the bill has been that they felt people in the house would be better prepared this early in his presidency.
Do you always make up?
I think we're done here.
i'm starting to think you need a frisbee golf course.
It really scares me how he's trying to convince the American people we NEED the government to save us.
By precedent, appropriations originate in the House, with the Senate following suit.
http://www.rules.house.gov/POP/approps_proc.htm
We are indeed done here.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
