18
   

Despite a bipartisan effort...

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 12:00 am
@parados,
He stated it on November 14 at a Google executive meeting and you can listen to the whole thing on the video. I didn't say anything about him 'interfering with Congress' though. You're making stuff up again Parados.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 12:03 am
@Foxfyre,
Maybe if it was actually in the video I would have seen it.

But you seem to have completely disregarded what he said and changed meanings and statements to make your claims.

The ONLY way Barack can get congress to allow a bill to have comment before they pass it is IF he interferes with Congress.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 12:04 am
@parados,
The way you characterized it was not in the video. The way I characterized it was.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 12:05 am
@Foxfyre,
BULL ****. The way you characterized it is NOT in the video.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 12:07 am
@parados,
At approximately 10 minutes Barack says he will let citizens comment on legislation before it is SIGNED.

Not before it is passed by Congress.


Your statement was BULL **** Fox.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 12:12 am
Okay I'll concede in this clip that he did say 'before it is signed' instead of 'before it is voted on'. So we'll see if he follows through on that and posts all 1100 pages of the bill including the hand written notes and changes in the margin and invites public comment before he signs it.

If he HAD been serious about this, though, don't you think that would be a really inefficient way of doing it? The Constitution only allows him 10 days to sign a bill into law or else it is automatically vetoed.
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 12:17 am
@parados,
I don't th do enough reading, Parados. Foxfyre's comment was accurate.

The article below criticizes Obama's PROMISE to govern from the bottom up.

And, I do hope that you are not asleep and can realize that this article does not come from the Limbaugh "right" but rather from the "Huffington" left.


Mr. Obama, Start Walking Your Bottom Up Talk
stumble digg reddit del.ico.us mixx.com ShareThis
Read More: Automaker Bailout, Bailout, Barack Obama, Bottom-Up, Cafta, Clintons, Economic Stimulus, Economic Stimulus Package, Globalization, Hank Paulson, Henry Paulson, Minorities, Minority, Nafta, Obama NAFTA, Obama Stimulus, Obama Stimulus Plan, Potus, Poverty, Poverty And Health, President Obama, Stimulus, Stimulus Package, Tim Geithner, Timothy Geithner, Walmart, Politics News



Show your support.
Buzz this article up.Buzz up! Get Breaking News Alerts

never spam
Share Print CommentsPresident Obama cites his bottom up intentions and promises all the time, almost every day. Yesterday, he said, when he was admitting he screwed up, with Daschle, "Ultimately, I campaigned on changing Washington and bottom up politics."

But his gazillion dollar bailout plan is not even close to bottom up. He threw a third of the money away on tax breaks, hoping to assuage the Republicans. It didn't work. But I don't call tax breaks a bottom up solution. Sure it gets some more money to people, but it really doesn't funnel or distribute money. It lets you get away with not paying money.

Bottom up approaches work because they do something different than usual, or because they support bottom up community, cooperation, sharing and community.

I had a chance, at a recent conference, to talk with a dozen of the current crop of US democratic senators. These are the good guys -- liberal, socially conscious, well intentioned -- but I don't think they get bottom up. They talk about providing funds for jobs as being bottom up. But the way those funds are being provided-- in a very top-down way, to states, to governors -- there is so much opportunity for the top to prevent the funds from trickling down.

The talk is that three quarters of the fund will be expended within 18 months. If we have that much time we ought to work through some really smart, creative, out of the box ways to spend the trillion dollars, or whatever it turns out to be in ways that maximize the bottom up aspects.

We saw what happened when Hank Paulson used a totally top down approach, doling out the $350 billion in tens of billion dollar dollops. A bottom up approach would have meant creating a system that distributed the money in hundreds or thousands of dollars, to individuals.

Unemployment overall may be at 7% using the newer calculations that Clinton instituted, but throw in the people who have given up looking and the numbers are in the double digits. And look at specific groups, like blacks, Latinos or young people under 25 and things are much worse. They will also be the last ones to benefit from the infrastructure spending that Obama and the members of congress like to talk about. And how much will tax breaks help the unemployed?

I keep thinking we need to do what the government did during world war two and issue coupon books. People will have an opportunity to borrow money from banks. The banks will get the money as people use the money. I know one company with a great product line and orders. They can't get financing to create more product. They're going out of business. Maybe if the recovery plan included small business coupons, where people could show how they could use the money and have their loans guaranteed, and they could go to the bank of their choice with a government economic recovery "voucher" they could salvage their business. An awful lot of small businesses are hurting because they are having trouble collecting receivables. That's not very different than mortgage holders. Why should giant companies in the money business having trouble with receivables be treated better than small businesses with receivables.

I have a friend who's been in the jewelry business for 40 years, since he was a teen working for his father. Being a jeweler today is a dead end job. He survives by buying gold from people who are selling their heirlooms. He needs to change direction and that's a tough thing to do. He's smart, skilled and incredibly trustworthy and reliable, but scared sh*tless about changing from what he's been doing for so many years. There should be a big budget, scholarships and counseling, for helping people like him deal with the changes and figure out what else to do. I keep telling him, when he tells me he's too old to do something new that the first thing he needs to do is have the intention -- that it will all flow from there. A bottom up approach to healing this economic crisis will help the millions whose jobs are gone or dying to develop the intention to develop new options. And a bottom up approach to the crisis will make those options exist. Building bridges and roads won't do it. That may help 25 year-olds who can take lower paying construction jobs, but not unemployed or out of business jewelers, entrepreneurs and stock brokers over 45 or 55 or 65 -- who lost their life savings when their 401ks, if they even had them, collapsed.

Obama was talking about a buy American program until the European union threatened to retaliate and, apparently, he backed off. Our world trade deals suck. They were signed to make a handful of transnational companies happy and they have already destroyed too many of our home grown industries. The economists who keep flogging the simple minded globalization policies we've been embracing are the same ones who brought us to the economic black hole we're in the middle of being sucked into. Don't listen to them. Ignore Europe. They will do the same. We all have to do what we can for our industries. Cut a deal so they can help their industries without punishing us and we'll help our industries without punishing them. No living creature can survive without a skin and global trade deals like WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. are all deals that flay a nation's economic skin. We need smarter deals that allow open trade with some protections. Nature does this with membranes. We need a membrane global trade model. Meanwhile, withdraw from all our foreign trade deals -- WTO, NAFTA, etc. -- or put them on hold. We need to be able to use all our resources to save our nation's jobs.

If you're going to give billions to auto manufacturers, use a bottom up approach that gives the manufacturers access to billions that consumers can use to buy new, fuel-efficient cars and to trade in, for extra bonuses, old gas-guzzlers. But don't hand the money to the manufacturers. Require them to sell cars with consumers all getting coupons, for, say, $10,000 to buy a car and $5,000 to sell their gas-guzzler. Then, loan the banks money to finance the difference. Take an equity position in the companies. With that kind of selling program, they ought to be able to move a few million cars. Every citizen should get a coupon. They could even be traded. That will get money into the auto companies and into people's hands. If people don't want to buy cars, they can get a different kind of coupon when they discount sell their coupon to someone who wants a bigger car, which can be used to buy something else that's made in America.

The one thing we don't want to do is put out money that people can use to buy Chinese made goods at Walmart -- unless the Chinese offer a discount or kick in somehow. That could work. They have a stake in getting the American economy back up and running. It bothers me that currently, they are benefiting as Walmart is one of the few remaining profitable companies. Why? Because they use China's almost-slave wage labor to source products.

Here's a bottom up approach that will produce jobs -- offer to pay the salary and health benefits for new hires by small businesses. Better yet, start paying the health benefits of employees of small businesses that don't provide health care AND pay the salaries and provide health care, even if it's medicare, for new hires. I'd hire some for my two businesses.

Here's another bottom up approach. Take a look at the businesses that are in big trouble and see why. It is time for some of them to die. Circuit City, other big box stores, mall stores, print newspapers -- they are going to disappear anyway. Help the newly emerging businesses that are replacing them -- web stores, bloggers, online media sites. The world is changing and as we descend into the black hole of this economic crisis, we need to stretch the envelope, find new ways and smarter ways, innovative new approaches that will save us. Stupid, short-sighted economic experiments with derivatives and the like got us here. Smart, creative innovations will get us out -- if we do it bottom up.

The bottom line of bottom up is to put the money, in smaller amounts, through individuals and small businesses, not through top-down systems -- like governors and states or megacorporations. Trust he wisdom of the crowd to invest that money in the companies that deserve to survive and let some of the big companies die if they can't figure out how to attract the crowd.

Get smart with putting restrictions on how all the money is spent. Don't allow big expenditures -- to buy more companies, making more, bigger companies that are too big to fail. Don't allow grand parties or crazy ad campaigns. Even figure out how to get money to people by putting ads on their new cars or new solar panels on their houses.

We are not going to quickly get over this global economic crisis by doing what we've done before. We are absolutely not going to recover by depending upon a few eggheads, like the economists who got us into this. We really must trust the wisdom of the crowds to find the best solutions and the only way to do that is with truly bottom up solutions that funnel most of the money to the people -- and not through tax breaks which allow the money to be spent on anything. We need to channel the money in smart ways by using coupons and credit systems. If it works for ATT, giving out credit cards with money electronically recorded in them, maybe the same can be done for the bailout. I don't have the detailed answers. But they won't be hard to come up with. The first step in the bailout should be to get all of the people in the world submitting ideas and suggestions on new ways to use the hundreds of billions or trillions we'll be spending. How dare a few hundred members of congress and Summers, Geithner, et. al, think they are smart enough to solve the problem they created in the first place.

The solutions and the distribution of the money should be bottom up. Maybe, before the vote, the congress and your staff ought to have some training on just what bottom up is really all about, because it's clear so far that most just don't get it and you've forgotten it, except for the words. And President Obama, it's time for you to start walking your bottom up talk.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 12:24 am
@Foxfyre,
It has been up on the Whitehouse blog since 2pm eastern today requesting public comment. Links to the documents are on the blog. Scanning few of the pages, I noted several handwritten notations in the margins, though I have not yet taken time to scan the whole thing.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/02/13/ARRA-for-comment/

Quote:
On Thursday, Feburary 12, 2009, the Conference Committee for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 produced a Conference Report, reconciling the House and Senate versions of the bill.

Read the conference report by clicking on the links below -- then use the form at the right to leave your comments, thoughts, and ideas.

Text of the Conference Report -- Division A
Text of the Conference Report -- Division B
Joint Explanatory Statement -- Division A
Joint Explanatory Statement


Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 12:27 am
@Butrflynet,
Can you get through on those links Butrflynet? All I get is 'thank you for visiting.....you are exiting the website' or some such as that.
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 12:28 am
Alex Castellanos- CNN-February 16 wrote:

Bottom-up politics is one thing, however. Bottom-up government, another. When Barack Obama became the nominee of the national Democratic establishment, the candidate of hope ran into political reality: His party's canons of governing are the opposite of change.

Barack Obama may believe "change doesn't come from the top down, it comes from the bottom up," but the leadership of his party doesn't. The national Democratic establishment, from the Daily Kos and MoveOn.org to Pelosi and Reid in Congress, still believe in top-down big-government from Washington, especially if they get to run the factory. Politically, they are industrial-age dinosaurs

They believe the era of big government is back, not over. They would keep money and power in their hands, not devolve it to the average American. That was not something the Denver Democrats were eager to confess.

Instead, they advocated a sly European-style socialism that would not speak its intent. "Decent, quality health care as a fundamental right and not a privilege," the Democrats offered during the first night of their convention. A big-government health-care factory run by Washington? That's change? Why not the same for food, clothing and shelter?

But relax, Joe Lunchbucket, an even bigger public-sector industrial plant will impose no cost on your family. Obama's party promises not to tax you, just business -- the people who sell you your groceries and gasoline and sign your paychecks.

As Fred Thompson noted in his GOP convention speech, "They won't take any water out of your side of the bucket. Just the other side." This is not "voter as hero" but, instead, "voter as victim." A heroic Washington has all the money, the power, and the answers. Same old, same old. So the candidate of change fell silent. And he sang change never again.

Barack Obama could have spoken truth to power. He could have pledged to confront the Democratic Party establishment. He could have brought a more natural, organic era of bottom-up government, not just bottom-up politics, to a dated party clinging to a decaying philosophy of authority.

But when the irresistible force of Obama's bottom-up politics met the immovable object of Democratic Party power, it was the dream, not the power, that conceded.

"Yes we can" turned out to mean not "Yes the people can", just "Yes Washington can." Too bad. It would have refreshed the Democratic Party and the country.

This movie is not new: The candidate who runs to change the establishment doesn't. Instead, we see it change him. The hope for real change in Washington has been suffocated by an older generation's embrace.

Now, Barack Obama finds himself trapped without a post-partisan message. Instead of challenging politics-as-usual, he sells the usual partisan politics: "Bush-McCain", he shouts from rooftops, sounding like every other Democrat in the chorus, pretending partisanship is fresh.

The story? Bottom-up change ran into top-down liberalism. Old-fashioned liberalism won. That's Act II. Stand by for the play's end.

****************************************************************

Chew on that- Parados!!
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 12:29 am
@Butrflynet,
And this site has a lot of the detail broken down and charted, and also compares all the various versions of it to each other.

http://www.propublica.org/special/stimulus-plan-taxcut-list
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 12:30 am
@Foxfyre,
You have to click the link inside the box that tells you you are leaving the whitehouse.gov site. The forwarding mechanism that hands you off to the next site isn't working properly, probably because they are pdf files and not actual websites.

I sent a note to the tech help people at whitehouse.gov earlier this afternoon telling them about it. Hopefully they'll put a note in the notification box advising people to click on the link there.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 12:31 am
Butterfly Net- I had no trouble getting to see the data. You just have to keep clicking on the appropriate lines. Parados,however, may be, as usual, highly confused.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 12:32 am
@Foxfyre,
I figured out how to do it. Thanks.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 12:49 am
@Foxfyre,
A lot of it does seem to be there. They did take down one website awhile ago but that may be to add notations or whatever.

The Senate didn't vote until this evening so not sure all the changes have been added yet.

At any rate, I am impressed that it does appear to be there. We'll see how much time the Pres gives us to look it over before he signs it. Smile

(You would think he or his press secretary would have mentioned to us in one of the press conferences the last few days that we could see the information on the website.)
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 12:59 am
@Foxfyre,
Well, according to you he announced it back on November 14th. How much time do you need? Wink :::flee!:::

Actually, I am very impressed that it is up there and that the site hasn't crashed. That is a HUGE amount of bandwidth being used for those big files.
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 08:44 am
@genoves,
genoves wrote:
Read it and weep: [..]

Some fascinating polling results from Rasmussen:

1) The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 37% favor the legislation, 43% are opposed, and 20% are not sure.Two weeks ago, 45% supported the plan. Last week, 42% supported it.

If you would have clicked the link, you would have noticed that Rasmussen hs done another poll since then. In which public support for the stimulus bill was back up.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 09:59 am
@Butrflynet,
Quote:
Well, according to you he announced it back on November 14th. How much time do you need? Wink :::flee!:::


Did you just call Fox an idiot? You didn't, did you? Laughing
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 10:37 am
@Butrflynet,
Butrflynet wrote:

Well, according to you he announced it back on November 14th. How much time do you need? Wink :::flee!:::

Actually, I am very impressed that it is up there and that the site hasn't crashed. That is a HUGE amount of bandwidth being used for those big files.


Announced what? Transparency? Governing from the bottom up instead of the top down? Giving the people time to see what their government had passed and hearing from them before signing bills into law? Yes, he said all that in a speech as shown in the video I posted. On November 14, he certainly didn't mention trillion dollar deficits, however. Do you suppose he would have been elected if he had?

In his defense, he had no way of knowing what was coming, and I don't think he had trillion dollar deficits in mind. At that time he was still excoriating the Bush administration for excessive deficits and promising to do things on a bipartisan basis. And, because he hadn't actually spent much time in the Senate for the last couple of years, I think he wasn't zoning in on how impossible that would be with the Congress we have. And I'm sure he had no idea how much more difficult it would be to govern than it is to sell high-minded theories about governing.

I agree it is good that the bill is up there, though I think practically nobody but hardcore leftists, Democratic spokespersons, or people willing to believe without evidence are praising it much. There are certainly some good things in it, there is a whole lot of pork and welfare that people receiving it will be happy to get, but only a relatively small percentage of it can be said to be economic stimulus or anything that will create or protect more than government jobs.

I am somewhat encouraged, however. Some analyst on TV last night said that only about 11% of it would be spent in 2009, another 37% in 2010, and the remainder no sooner than late 2011. If that is true, then we won't get fully clobbered right away and, if this bill is as bad and as unpopular as I suspect it will be, we may have an opportunity to cancel or reverse much of it.

We'll see how it goes.

But yes, it is good that the thing is there on the internet for all to see. I hope they leave it up permanently.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 11:22 am
Btw, the bill passes; and Obama will sign it into law on Monday.

Cycloptichorn
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 06:56:38