President Obama: Please Address the Nation on the Bill Directly! - Page 2 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

CSA · #16 (**permalink**) 02-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by htperr6565

had he been questioned, he would have.

20-28 about the econony? my ass. he had one dumb question about iran and one dumb one about a-rod. that was it. the rest was the economy.

ok.. I will list all questions.... I will color teh ones specifically about the STIMULUS in green and others in red...

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. Earlier today in Indiana, you said something striking. You said that this nation could end up in a crisis without action that we would be unable to reverse.

Can you talk about what you know or what you're hearing that would lead you to say that our recession might be permanent when others in our history have not? And do you think that you risk losing some credibility or even talking down the economy by using dire language like that?

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to shift gears to foreign policy. What is your strategy for engaging Iran? And when will you start to implement it? Will your timetable be affected at all by the Iranian elections? And are you getting any indications that Iran is interested in a dialogue with the United States?

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. You have often said that bipartisanship is extraordinarily important, overall and in this stimulus package, but now, when we ask your advisers about the lack of bipartisanship so far -- zero votes in the House, three in the Senate -- they say, "Well, it's not the number of votes that matters; it's the number of jobs that will be created."

Is that a sign that you are moving away -- your White House is moving away from this emphasis on bipartisanship?

And what went wrong? Did you underestimate how hard it would be to change the way Washington works? Not about stimulus but about how washington works... ok I will give this a 50% red 50% green

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. In your opening remarks, you talked about that, if your plan works the way you want it to work, it's going to increase consumer spending. But isn't consumer spending, or overspending, how we got into this mess? And if people get money back into their pockets, do you not want them saving it or paying down debt first before they start spending money into the economy?

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. Many experts, from Nouriel Roubini to Sen. [Chuck] Schumer [D-New York], have said that it will cost the government more than $1 trillion to really fix the financial system. During the campaign, you promised the American people that you won't just tell them what they want to hear, but what they need to hear.

Won't the government need far more than the $350 billion that's remaining in the financial rescue funds to really solve the credit crisis?

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. My question follows Julianna's in -- in content. The American people have seen hundreds of billions of dollars spent already, and still the economy continues to freefall.

Beyond avoiding the national catastrophe that you've warned about, once all the legs of your stool are in place...

Obama: Right.

Question: ... how can the American people gauge whether or not your programs are working? Can they -- should they be looking at the metric of the stock market, home foreclosures, unemployment? What metric should they use when and how will they know if it's working or whether or not we need to go to a Plan B?

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. You've promised to send more troops to Afghanistan. And since you've been very clear about a timetable to withdraw combat troops from Iraq within 16 months, I wonder, what's your timetable to withdraw troops eventually from Afghanistan?

And related to that, there's a Pentagon policy that bans media coverage of the flag-draped coffins from coming in to Dover Air Force Base. And back in 2004, then-Sen. Joe Biden said that it was shameful for dead soldiers to be, quote, "snuck back into the country under the cover of night."

You've promised unprecedented transparency, openness in your government. Will you overturn that policy so the American people can see the full human cost of war?

Question: Thank you, sir. I wanted to ask you, on the next bank bailout, are you going to impose a requirement that the financial institutions use this money to loosen up credit and make new lending? And if not, how do you make the case to the American people that this bailout will work when the last one didn't?

Question: Mr. President, at a speech Friday that many of us covered, Vice President Biden said the following thing about a conversation the two of you had in the Oval Office about a subject he didn't disclose.

"If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, if we stand up there and we really make the tough decisions, there's still a 30 percent chance we're going to get it wrong."

Since the vice president brought it up, can you tell the American people, sir, what you were talking about? And if not, can you at least reassure them it wasn't the stimulus bill or the bank rescue plan and if, in general, you agree with that ratio of success, 30 percent failure, 70 percent success?

Obama: You know, I don't remember exactly what Joe was referring to

Question: Yes, thank you, sir. What is your reaction to Alex Rodriguez's admission that he used steroids as a member of the Texas Rangers?

Question: Mr. President, do you think that Pakistan and -- are maintaining the safe havens in Afghanistan for these so-called terrorists? And, also, do you know of any country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons?

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. Today, Sen. Patrick Leahy [D-Vermont] announced that he wants to set up a truth and reconciliation committee to investigate the misdeeds of the Bush administration. He said that, before you turn the page, you have to read the page first.

Do you agree with such a proposal? And are you willing to rule out right here and now any prosecution of Bush administration officials?

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. If it's this hard to get more than a handful of Republican votes on what is relatively easy -- spending tons of money and cutting people's taxes -- when you look down the road at health care, and entitlement reform, and energy reform, those are really tough choices. You're going to be asking some people to get less and some people to pay more.

What do you think you're going to have to do to get more bipartisanship? Are you going to need a new legislative model, bringing in Republicans from the very beginning, getting more involved in the details yourself from the beginning, or using bipartisan commissions? What has this experience with the stimulus led you to think about when you think about these future challenges?

ok, now count the number of questions about the STIMULUS, opps I forgot they dont want to call it stimulus anymore... hrmm the INVESTMENT bill covered.

htperr6565 · #17 (**permalink**) 02-10-2009

dude, who cares. for one, some of your reds were about economic recovery, an umbrella the stimulus plan is under.

when the bill was introduced in the house, it was titled the american recovery and reinvestment plan. when you only get your news from the media, you got the notion that it is just now being called a recovery plan?

for two, how the hell is it his fault what questions get asked.

and before you accuse him of staging all questions, provide evidence for the sake of not looking like a stubborn loon.

oh, and did i say most were about the stimulus, or about the economy????????????

CSA · #18 (**permalink**) 02-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by htperr6565

dude, who cares. for one, some of your reds were about economic recovery, an umbrella the stimulus plan is under.

when the bill was introduced in the house, it was titled the american recovery and reinvestment plan. when you only get your news from the media, you got the notion that it is just now being called a recovery plan?

for two, how the hell is it his fault what questions get asked.

and before you accuse him of staging all questions, provide evidence for the sake of not looking like a stubborn loon.

oh, and did i say most were about the stimulus, or about the economy????????????

ahh now its "who cares" gotcha... kinda like shumer saying the american people dont care about the pork!!

htperr6565 · #19 (**permalink**) 02-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSA

ahh now its "who cares" gotcha... kinda like shumer saying the american people dont care about the pork!!

do you have any more highlighted words, or you here to actually discuss topics?

considering how you posted a half page post addressing a point i did not even make......

read much?

mudwhistle · #20 (**permalink**) 02-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSA

yea maybe he can dicuss this little DIDDY that made it into the "stimulus"

National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446).

Universal Health Care...........You're 75.....you need a new kidney..........sorry.........you're not productive enough to make this operation cost-effective.

The government thinks it's better for you to die because you're not worth the money it would cost to fix what's wrong with you.

Daschle wrote a book about this little tactic...........he said Congress should place this program in an appropriations bill bypassing the "unnessessary" and "bothersome" debate procedures that bills udually go through.

Sunshine · #21 (**permalink**) 02-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim

I have mentioned this several times, but I want to run a thread on this: I would like to see the President speak directly to the nation about the spending/stimulus bill in its specifics. Press conferences are fine in their way, but they are no substitute for speaking directly to the public.

I believe this would calm a great deal of the fear and uncertainity surrounding a bill which has become a partisan battleground. We will certainly be living with the bill - I want to know the details without the fighting.

Obama knows how to make a speech with eloquence and intensity. He has a gift for oratory. It needs to be used.

Ike's administration built the great interstates of the 1950s. It is possible to make all of this exciting and fascinating. Many US cities are desperate for infrastructure.

Tell us how the bill will directlly effect the housing industry.

Tell us about the tax aspects.

Tell us about the banks.

It is understandable to emphasize the crisis aspect - but we all know about that part.

We need hope and vision. We don't need to hear again how terrible things are. This was repeated in the message today in Indiana - with references to disaster. The words "cataclysm", "disaster" and "catastrophe" should not be included.

Don't go after the Republicans anymore. The Democrats do not have an impressive record on any of this either, and both parties have plenty to answer for.

No more pointing fingers and complaining; it comes across as small-minded and petty. The opposition will just use that anyway. It's a waste of precious time. Just emphasize hope.

Let us know what the future might look like. Appeal to our imagination and innovation and our genius for resilience and pragmatism.

There are millions of Americans waiting to hear it.

You think the prez reads USPO?

CSA · #22 (**permalink**) 02-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

Universal Health Care...........You're 75.....you need a new kidney..........sorry.........you're not productive enough to make this operation cost-effective.

The government thinks it's better for you to die because you're not worth the money it would cost to fix what's wrong with you.

Daschle wrote a book about this little tactic...........he said Congress should place this program in an appropriations bill bypassing the "unnessessary" and "bothersome" debate procedures that bills udually go through.

Yes and it will be law soon.... they slipped it in...

Imperator · #23 (**permalink**) 02-10-2009

I listened to his remarks at the town hall he had in Indiana and what he said there is what he said at the press conference, I didn’t hear anything new, few details and some fili-buster answers that never answered the questions asked.

The Japanese infrastructure mention was a really laugher imho, if he knew why the lost decade is/was the lost decade he would not have used it. Apparently he doesn’t know, that the infrastructure spending was a bust.

JackMc185 · #24 (**permalink**) 02-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim

I have mentioned this several times, but I want to run a thread on this: I would like to see the President speak directly to the nation about the spending/stimulus bill in its specifics. Press conferences are fine in their way, but they are no substitute for speaking directly to the public.

I believe this would calm a great deal of the fear and uncertainity surrounding a bill which has become a partisan battleground. We will certainly be living with the bill - I want to know the details without the fighting.

Obama knows how to make a speech with eloquence and intensity. He has a gift for oratory. It needs to be used.

Ike's administration built the great interstates of the 1950s. It is possible to make all of this exciting and fascinating. Many US cities are desperate for infrastructure.

Tell us how the bill will directlly effect the housing industry.

Tell us about the tax aspects.

Tell us about the banks.

It is understandable to emphasize the crisis aspect - but we all know about that part.

We need hope and vision. We don't need to hear again how terrible things are. This was repeated in the message today in Indiana - with references to disaster. The words "cataclysm", "disaster" and "catastrophe" should not be included.

Don't go after the Republicans anymore. The Democrats do not have an impressive record on any of this either, and both parties have plenty to answer for.

No more pointing fingers and complaining; it comes across as small-minded and petty. The opposition will just use that anyway. It's a waste of precious time. Just emphasize hope.

Let us know what the future might look like. Appeal to our imagination and innovation and our genius for resilience and pragmatism.

There are millions of Americans waiting to hear it.

You're absolutely correct, Tim. The president, any president, has the "bully pulpit" and he has to use wisely. FDR, Kennedy, Regan, and George H.W. bush all used it. He has to speak to the people because all you get from the talking heads and congresscritters is noise. He has to get his message out of the beltway.

mudwhistle · #25 (**permalink**) 02-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackMc185

You're absolutely correct, Tim. The president, any president, has the "bully pulpit" and he has to use wisely. FDR, Kennedy, Regan, and George H.W. bush all used it. He has to speak to the people because all you get from the talking heads and congresscritters is noise. He has to get his message out of the beltway.

Well this seems to be his message now:

Quote:

"Mr. Hope has to be careful not to become Dr. Doom," said Frank Luntz, a political consultant and author of the book "Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear."

"The danger for him is using the Jimmy Carter malaise rhetoric, particularly for Mr. Obama, who was elected because people thought he was the solution. There's only so much negativity they will tolerate from him before they will feel betrayed," Mr. Luntz said.

Brad Blakeman, a senior aide to Mr. Bush from 2001 to 2004, said the new president's language is immature.

"It's not presidential. An American leader needs to be hopeful and optimistic - and truthful. Everything he says is parsed; everything he says is searched for deep meaning. When he goes to 'DefCon 5' on the economy and says that we're on the brink of catastrophe, it's absolutely insane."

Washington Times - 'Doom' talk scored as 'not presidential'

He keeps repeating two major-league whoppers.

1. That the Porkulus bill will stimulate the economy

2. That this is the worst economy since the Great Depression

The numbers don't concur with that assessment.

Currently unemployment is at 7.6% which was about average during the 80s. At one time unemployment reached 18% during that period. Before the election the unemployment rate was 5.9%.

What happened to change this.........hummmmmmmmm....I wonder. Could it be that Obama's rhetoric is driving the economy off a cliff?

Why has the unemployment rate skyrocketed since the Messiah won the election? Why has over 600,000 jobs been lost since Obama was sworn in. Why are businesses laying off employees in droves?

Could it be Obama's doom and gloom rhetoric?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ould-backfire/
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/1...pay-attention/

mudwhistle · #26 (**permalink**) 02-10-2009

Just to give you an idea what Obama has been saying about the economy the last month this is what he said after talking to a group of GOP Congressmen on Jan. 28th:

Quote:

In the end, the answer to our economic troubles rests less in my hands or in the hands of our legislators than it does with America's workers and the businesses that employ them. They are the ones whose efforts and ideas will determine our economic destiny just as they always have. For in the end it's businesses -- large and small -- that generate the jobs, provide the salaries, and serve as the foundation on which the American people's lives and dreams depend. All we can do, those of us here in Washington, is to help create a favorable climate in which workers can prosper, businesses can thrive, and our economy can grow.

And then last night:

Quote:

At this particular moment, with the private sector so weakening by this recession, the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life. It is only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs lead to people spending less money, which leads to even more layoffs -- and breaking that cycle is exactly what the plan that's moving through Congress is designed to do.

I don't think Obama knows how to be honest........even in a crisis.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...110.guest.html

htperr6565 · #27 (**permalink**) 02-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

Well this seems to be his message now:

He keeps repeating two major-league whoppers.

1. That the Porkulus bill will stimulate the economy

2. That this is the worst economy since the Great Depression

The numbers don't concur with that assessment.

Currently unemployment is at 7.6% which was about average during the 80s. At one time unemployment reached 18% during that period. Before the election the unemployment rate was 5.9%.

What happened to change this.........hummmmmmmmm....I wonder. Could it be that Obama's rhetoric is driving the economy off a cliff?

Why has the unemployment rate skyrocketed since the Messiah won the election? Why has over 600,000 jobs been lost since Obama was sworn in. Why are businesses laying off employees in droves?

Could it be Obama's doom and gloom rhetoric?

Washington Times - 'Doom' talk scored as 'not presidential'
Hot Air Blog Archive Obama presser: Does Obama pay attention?

ummm, pal, i believe the jobs were being lost prior to obama's election.

his 'doom and gloom rhetoric' (although calling a crisis a crisis and offering a proactive plan hardly qualifies) has not come until AFTER, as in not before, the job loss, the credit crunch, etc...

but, spin things to suit your fancy. like we expect anything different.

daddio · #28 (**permalink**) 02-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by htperr6565

ummm, pal, i believe the jobs were being lost prior to obama's election.

his 'doom and gloom rhetoric' (although calling a crisis a crisis and offering a proactive plan hardly qualifies) has not come until AFTER, as in not before, the job loss, the credit crunch, etc...

but, spin things to suit your fancy. like we expect anything different.

as it began to look like he might win things staerted turning south as business knew it was going to mean hunker down time for 4 years.

and thank Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for lying about F&F's financial state over the summer.

jotathought · #29 (**permalink**) 02-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

I thought Obama nailed it tonight. Didn't you see the part where he forcefully argued for the job creation and longterm benefits of weatherizing federal buildings and homes? Or what about the money that students and families can save with greater tax incentives on tuition?

His points about housing and small businesses were well made and knowing, and his example from the town hall earlier in the day was effective. That part came when he talked about doling out the rest of TARP and making sure that people with good credit who run small businesses can get the loans and the money they need.

Instead of getting up there and rehashing his whole campaign argument, a campaign for which he clearly won a mandate by the way, he took the point of view of regular people and explained those people to Congress. I love it, he got up there and completely reframed the entire argument and he's going to score a win this week because of it.

Many people, including me, aren't happy to see that things had to come to this, but the people who are in the shits right now know that there is a ton of investment into infrastructure and tax cuts for middle income earners, who've been lost and forgotten for far too long now. They know what this bill means, and they aren't really asking to have it re-explained to them since they thought they knew what they were getting when they voted for a clear mandate on this one, and this bill contains a lot of that.

Oh yeah .. he nailed it .. considering he goofed on his econmic history of Japan, and flat out told two mistruths: He indicated that Republicans wanted to sit back and do nothing, which is incorrect, because they offered 2 alternative plans which would have had overwhelming support not to mention it was the CBO that recommended to do nothing, and he blamed Republicans for a trillion dollar deficit that was inherited, when nearly half of that came from a stimulus package approved by Democrats.

mudwhistle · #30 (**permalink**) 02-11-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by jotathought

Oh yeah .. he nailed it .. considering he goofed on his econmic history of Japan, and flat out told two mistruths: He indicated that Republicans wanted to sit back and do nothing, which is incorrect, because they offered 2 alternative plans which would have had overwhelming support not to mention it was the CBO that recommended to do nothing, and he blamed Republicans for a trillion dollar deficit that was inherited, when nearly half of that came from a stimulus package approved by Democrats.

Once again Obama is acting like he's an outsider.

He was a US Senator for Christ sake.

Doesn't he deserve to take some of the blame for his actions or inaction the last 4 years?

I think we need to hold these guys accountable. They're living like fat-cats on our dime with great health benefits and great opportunity for income as a result of their positions.

Put a ceiling on their income from all sources. Make them have to settle for the same health care programs we have to deal with. Make them have to suffer the way we are suffering under their lame programs and hair-brained screwups. And when they're caught breaking the law throw their asses in jail.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode