He's no messiah

[jmo]

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/03/03/kerpen_obama_budget/

 

All this just in one month. I'll make it six by saying that on the campaign trail he said he respected the 2nd Amendment of the Bil of Rights of the people and wouldn't take anyone's guns away. A week ago he proposed another "assault weapons" ban.

 

Bash Fox News all you want, but all six of these lies are widely known facts.

[tvashtarkatena]

It's a good thing we gave the feds all those intrusive powers during the Bush years. Now there's a new law in town, with a different agenda.

 

Good luck hiding your guns.

[Choada_Boy]

Bash Fox News all you want...

 

Yes, let's! Here's Bill O'Reilly providing some insight into the case of an 11 year-old boy kidnapped, held captive, and raped repeatedly, for four years:

 

"The situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents. He didn't have to go to school. He could run around and do whatever he wanted."

 

and:

 

"I hope he did not make a conscious decision to accept his captivity because Devlin made things easy for him. No school, play all day long. "

 

Trusted news source?

 

[billcoe]

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/03/03/kerpen_obama_budget/

 

All this just in one month. I'll make it six by saying that on the campaign trail he said he respected the 2nd Amendment of the Bil of Rights of the people and wouldn't take anyone's guns away. A week ago he proposed another "assault weapons" ban.

 

Bash Fox News all you want, but all six of these lies are widely known facts.

 

Here's the full Fox list:

 

" Obama’s Top Five Broken Promises

 

By Phil Kerpen

Director of Policy, Americans for Prosperity

 

Promise #5: Sunlight Before Signing

 

What he said:

 

“Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.” (BarackObama.com campaign Web site)

 

What he did:

 

Obama signed the Lily Ledbetter bill, the SCHIP/cigarette tax hike, and the stimulus bill all with far less than a five-day waiting period that he promised–and continues to promise–on his campaign Web site.

 

Promise #4: Lobbyist Revolving Door

 

What he said:

 

“No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration.” (BarackObama.com campaign Web site)

 

What he did:

 

Obama appointed Goldman Sachs lobbyists Mark Patterson chief of staff at the Treasury Department, where he directly oversees his former employer, a recipient of $10 billion of taxpayer funds from the TARP. Obama also appointed Raytheon lobbyist William Lynn to be an undersecretary of Defense.

 

Promise #3: No Tax Hikes on the Poor

 

What he said first:

 

“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” (September 12, 2008, Dover, N.H.)

 

What he did first:

 

By signing H.R. 2 into law, Obama happily signed onto the idea that smokers should pay for a $35 billion expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan (SCHIP). Cigarette taxes are going up 61 cents a pack starting April 1. Obama signed this bill knowing that the majority of smokers in the United States are working poor, and one in four lives below the federal poverty line.

 

What he said next:

 

“If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.” (February 24th, 2009, Address to a Joint Session of Congress)

 

What he did next:

 

Ignored the already-hiked cigarette tax at the time of the statement and then this restated promise was broken just two days later, when the Obama’s budget proposal was released. His new budget raises 45 percent of its revenue from energy taxes that will be paid by everyone who fills a gas tank, pays an electric bill, or buys anything that was grown, shipped, or manufactured.

 

Promise #2: Pork Barrel Earmark Reform

 

What he said:

 

“The system is broken. We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress’ seniority, rather than the merit of the project. We can no longer accept an earmarks process that has become so complicated to navigate that a municipality or non-profit group has to hire high-priced D.C. lobbyists to do it. And we can no longer accept an earmarks process in which many of the projects being funded fail to address the real needs of our country.”

 

(Statement on Earmarks, March 10, 2008)

 

What he is expected to do:

 

The White House has signaled that it intends to sign the $410 billion Omnibus Appropriations bill, which according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, contains 8,570 earmarks totaling $7.7 billion, including dozens of wasteful pork-barrel projects. These earmarks were awarded based on seniority, not on merit, and were mostly the result of high-priced lobbying, precisely the process that Obama promised to end. When the omnibus reaches his desk later this week or next week, we’ll find out if this is one more broken promise.

 

Promise #1: Big Government

 

OK, so this one is more of a statement than a promise, but it’s the biggest whopper of all.

 

What he said:

 

“Not because I believe in bigger government — I don’t.” (February 24, 2009, Joint Address to Congress)

 

What he did:

 

Obama proposed a budget that is breathtaking in scope, a blueprint for the biggest permanent expansion of government in history right on the heels of a sweeping trillion dollar stimulus plan. The budget lays the foundation for a government takeover of the health care and energy sectors and dramatically increasing spending across the board, other than defense weapons programs. Spending as a percentage of the economy under this budget will reach the historic level of 27.7 percent this year. The deficit as a percent of the economy, at 12.3 percent, is set to be the biggest in the entire history of the country outside of the four peak years of World War II. Anyone who offers such a budget can only fairly be described as a believer in bigger government.

 

Phil Kerpen is director of policy for Americans for Prosperity."

 

I don't think Fox gave him a fair shake, and on the assault weapons ban comment, to be fair, that was Eric Holders comment in discussing ways we can help Mexico was it not? In examining the "Biggest whopper", ie larger government, this is the full quote with that part underlined by me. Doesn't look damning to me like the sound bite Fox grabbed. In fact, it causes me not to respect or believe any of Foxes other stuff if they have to reach that much to pull something like that out of context to attack the dude. Here's more of that speech to congress.

 

"As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President’s Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in bigger government – I don’t.Not because I’m not mindful of the massive debt we’ve inherited – I am. I called for action because the failure to do so would have cost more jobs and caused more hardships. In fact, a failure to act would have worsened our long-term deficit by assuring weak economic growth for years. That’s why I pushed for quick action. And tonight, I am grateful that this Congress delivered, and pleased to say that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is now law.

 

Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs. More than 90% of these jobs will be in the private sector – jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges; constructing wind turbines and solar panels; laying broadband and expanding mass transit.

 

Because of this plan, there are teachers who can now keep their jobs and educate our kids. Health care professionals can continue caring for our sick. There are 57 police officers who are still on the streets of Minneapolis tonight because this plan prevented the layoffs their department was about to make.

 

Because of this plan, 95% of the working households in America will receive a tax cut – a tax cut that you will see in your paychecks beginning on April 1st. Because of this plan, families who are struggling to pay tuition costs will receive a $2,500 tax credit for all four years of college. And Americans who have lost their jobs in this recession will be able to receive extended unemployment benefits and continued health care coverage to help them weather this storm.

 

I know there are some in this chamber and watching at home who are skeptical of whether this plan will work. I understand that skepticism. Here in Washington, we’ve all seen how quickly good intentions can turn into broken promises and wasteful spending. And with a plan of this scale comes enormous responsibility to get it right.

 

That is why I have asked Vice President Biden to lead a tough, unprecedented oversight effort – because nobody messes with Joe. I have told each member of my Cabinet as well as mayors and governors across the country that they will be held accountable by me and the American people for every dollar they spend. I have appointed a proven and aggressive Inspector General to ferret out any and all cases of waste and fraud. And we have created a new website called recovery.gov so that every American can find out how and where their money is being spent.

 

So the recovery plan we passed is the first step in getting our economy back on track. But it is just the first step. Because even if we manage this plan flawlessly, there will be no real recovery unless we clean up the credit crisis that has severely weakened our financial system."

 

Come on now, you have to admit that the Fox bite is a lie and way out of context. As far as bigger government goes, did you look at the Bush budgets and the huge debt which they indebted you and your kids kids for??? ?

 

Whew. The Borrow and spend Republicans took us down in a big way, seriously, you should be glad they're gone. We are in a huge hole to dig out of, and Obama is starting in the hole that the Bush admin made for all of us, he's the one that is dealing with it though, although perhaps if you have any sterling ideas to add, I'm sure they could use all the help they could get.

 

 

[CollinWoods]

If you walk into your local FBI field office; do you know what will be playing on there TVs? CNN, no Fox news. Who trusts who?

[billcoe]

If you walk into your local FBI field office; do you know what will be playing on there TVs? CNN, no Fox news. Who trusts who?

 

I've never been into the FBI office, although I was just shooting my non-banned assault rifles next to 2 agents who had sniper rifles on my lunch hour today. I don't know if that makes FOX any better or if it should lower our opinion of the FBI if that's where they've been getting their info from.

[Mal_Con]

You don't have to go to the FBI office they will gladly come to yours

[jmo]

I was in a hurry, so this is the best I could find a few minutes without using Fox, since no one will believe it.

 

From the Wall St. Journal: "he president blamed the nation's economic travails on the administration that preceded him and on a nation that lost its bearings. His budget plan projects a federal deficit of $1.75 trillion for 2009, or 12.3% of the gross domestic product, a level not seen since 1942 as the U.S. plunged into World War II."

 

 

Since the Bush administration and Congress got us in more debt, the logical solution would be to spend less, so we can pay down the debt. Sure, blame Bush and look the other way while Obama's spending makes Bush look like a cheapskate. Bush's overspending is not a free passs to do the same.

 

 

Sooner or later, Obama will have to take responsibility for what happens, instead of the usual Democratic party line that it's all the republicans fault. Even CNN is starting to wonder.

 

"As the stock market continues to drop, President Obama is running out of people to blame, according to an editorial in the Wall Street Journal.

 

Before the president took office, in early January, the stock market was over 9,000 its highest level since last fall. But in the last two months, it has dropped 25% to its lowest level since 1997.

 

The Journal suggests that Mr. Obama’s policies are slowing, if not stopping, what would be a normal economic recovery. “From punishing business to squandering scarce national public resources, Team Obama is creating more uncertainty and less confidence,” said the editorial.

 

The editorial takes issue with the way much of the administration’s stimulus spending went to social programs rather than public works, how the Treasury has been managing the bank bailout plan, and how tax cuts were devoted to income maintenance rather than giving incentives to work or invest."

 

It's from the Wall St Journal, but CNN posted it.

[bradleym]

So now you are quoting the editorial page of the WSJ, as though what is contained there is 'factual'? Do you really think that 'confirms' something posted in a FOX opinion article?

 

I think it was you who complained that Rush was quoted out of context in the retelling of the 'I hope he fails' speech. Yet you fail to detect the same selectivity (and much more sloppy argument besides) in the FOX screed?

[StevenSeagal]

the 'I hope he fails' speech....

 

This is so ironic. Rush is the same guy who about a year or two ago was pushing the slogan "the Democrats are invested in defeat" as regards opposition to Bush foreign policy- i.e. the Democrats want us to lose the war and want soldiers to die, etc. etc.

 

Even more laughable, regarding the uproar over his apparent complete control over the GOP, is that he's repeatedly described himself in slogans and soundbites as "the Man who runs America!".

 

With the GOP in shambles, I wonder what exactly he runs now, aside from his big mouth?

 

[tvashtarkatena]

So now you are quoting the editorial page of the WSJ, as though what is contained there is 'factual'? Do you really think that 'confirms' something posted in a FOX opinion article?

 

I think it was you who complained that Rush was quoted out of context in the retelling of the 'I hope he fails' speech. Yet you fail to detect the same selectivity (and much more sloppy argument besides) in the FOX screed?

 

Op Ed pages are just that: opinions. FOX is exactly the same. It's simply not a news outlet; it's an Op Ed outlet. Essentially, it's a well funded blog. It's veracity and ethics are so poor that it's a complete waste of time for anyone who actually wants decent information. For people who want to be entertained by being fed what they already believe, FOX is great.

 

The premise of the article, poorly written and innaccurate as it is, seems to be to say "Hey, Obama broke some promises, so he sucks". Gross innaccuracies in the claims aside, there is no weighting given to the magnitude of the promise or whether it was politically necessary as part of getting the job done. From a different perspective, Obama's kept virtually all of his civil rights promises; something I was very concerned about. On time and on budget. Impressive. I'm not fully behind his whole program, but his actions in the ethical area get high marks from me.

 

Oh, and Rush's modus operandi when confronted with what he's said is to claim that it's been somehow taken out of context. Coulter and O'Reilly both employ the same trick. It's bullshit, of course, but it gets them through the interview process; something they can't avoid given their media exposure.

Edited March 5, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[olyclimber]

[video:youtube]C1KtScrqtbc

[jmo]

 

 

I agree that Op Ed pieces are opinion. I do not agree that Fox News is nothing more than a blog. The piece I that posted from Fox News was an Op Ed pieces, but everything there can be easily verified from other sources. Of the 6 lies I posted, only two were defended. While the recent controversy on "assault weapons" was sparked by the AG, the whitehouse.gov website lists renewal on the infringement of the people's rights as part of the Presidents agenda. As far as big government goes, Obama says he doesn't believe in big government, but is pushing for the biggest spending increase in history. Here's some more info from MS NBC

 

"The cost of the stimulus bill and the increased bailout support would push the deficit for this year to $1.75 trillion, nearly four times last year's record $455 billion and a percentage of the economy — just over 12 percent — not seen since World War II. The deficit would remain near $1 trillion over the next two years before dropping to $581 billion in 2012 and $533 billion in 2013, the year that Obama has pledged to cut the deficit he inherited in half.

 

 

The $1.75 trillion deficit projected for this year would represent 12.3 percent of the gross domestic product, double the previous post-war record of 6 percent in 1983, when Ronald Reagan was president, and the highest level since the deficit totaled 21.5 percent of GDP in 1945, at the end of World War II."

 

It's hard to not be for big government and still push for those kind of numbers.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29392964/page/2/

[0321recon]

It's a good thing we gave the feds all those intrusive powers during the Bush years. Now there's a new law in town, with a different agenda.

 

Good luck hiding your guns.

 

"Μολὼν λαβέ" -- Leonidas

 

 

[mkporwit]

It's a good thing we gave the feds all those intrusive powers during the Bush years. Now there's a new law in town, with a different agenda.

 

Good luck hiding your guns.

 

"Μολὼν λαβέ" -- Leonidas

 

 

Or for those whose browsers fail to render the greek, Molon Labe

[bradleym]

i don't know what i can do for you, this may be a terminal case, but i'll start with some of the claims made in the FOX article:

 

-->Sunshine period

SCHIP bill: voted on by Senate 14 January, voted on by House 29 January, considered and signed by president 4 Feb. Source

 

Lily Ledbetter bill: voted by House 9 January, still not voted by Senate, not signed by president. Source

 

Stimulus bill: voted by House 28 January, voted by Senate 10 Feb, considered / signed by president 17 Feb. Source

 

According to my source, OpenCongress, each piece of information cited by your author is false. If my source is accurate, then this particular claim falls to pieces, and furthermore this FOX fellow may have been caught in his own lie, since the Ledbetter bill has not passed the Senate yet.

 

If I have time later, I'll look into your friend's other claims.

[pink]

smooth talkin "nagger".

[bradleym]

-->Lobbyist Revolving Door

This issue, at first glance, appears to be more serious, and it may well be. Time will tell. A bit of googling turned up this, this and this.

 

This is from the horse's mouth, so to speak: Lobbyist Rules

 

The transition team's rules state "If someone has lobbied in the last 12 months, they are prohibited from working in the fields of policy on which they lobbied".

 

I am unable to determine whether Mark Patterson lobbied on behalf of Goldman Sachs in the past 12 months. He was registered as a lobbyist until 12 April 2008.

 

The FOX commentator states "Obama appointed Goldman Sachs lobbyists Mark Patterson chief of staff at the Treasury Department, where he directly oversees his former employer, a recipient of $10 billion of taxpayer funds from the TARP".

 

This insinuates/implies/states directly:

1. that Mark Patterson lobbied on behalf of GS in the past 12 months,

2. that Mark Patterson will 'oversee' GS directly,

3. that Mark Patterson will determine/influence how much money GS receives from the TARP.

 

I cannot find evidence to answer any of these, but perhaps someone else can. Such questions ought to have answers before one may conclude that 'Obama lied'.

 

Moreover, any new president is caught between a rock and a hard place regarding the staffing of the government. Most people who possess knowledge of the areas to be staffed will likely have questionable connections, from having worked in that field for a long time. From the 'brownie' case we understand that such appointees really ought to have experience in the realm they are to oversee. So subtle points must be considered, and tradeoffs will be required.

 

I know that won't cut much ice with the Rush crowd, because to them the world is simple, but there it is. Deal with it, and keep a close eye on the future activities of Mark Patterson. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

I don't have time right now to look into the defense appointee. maybe later.

[jmo]

Actually the econmic stimulus bill was approved the Senate on the 13th. (Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR00001:@@@X, the only source for legislation) After promising dire consequences for the country if that bill was not approved as soon as possible, he then went on back to chicago for a short vacation with his wife. He didn't wait long enough to fulfill his campaign promise, but did wait long enough to raise questions about the fear mongering he used to get it passed.

 

So far unmentioned by anyone, is repeated attempts by the Obama administration to appoint criminals to high office. Geithner, Daschle, Kirk to name just a few. He claims to be the champion of the poor, yet lets the rich not pay their taxes and not even pay penalties when it is exposed. Obama has not condemned the actions of any of his criminal appointees.

 

SCIP was not approved by both houses of Congress until Feb 4th. Signed by the President THAT SAME DAY. Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR00002:@@@X

 

Lily Ledbetter: Passed by Congress in it's final form Jan 27. Signed by the President Jan 29. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SN00181:@@@X

 

Your Source is wrong. My source at Fox was correct, and I have included links to the website of Congress to prove it.

[ivan]

she is!

[video:youtube]

[kevbone]

It's a good thing we gave the feds all those intrusive powers during the Bush years. Now there's a new law in town, with a different agenda.

 

We did not give the feds anything....they took our civil liberties ......and it wont stop there.....more to come.

[tvashtarkatena]

So far unmentioned by anyone, is repeated attempts by the Obama administration to appoint criminals to high office. Geithner, Daschle, Kirk to name just a few. He claims to be the champion of the poor, yet lets the rich not pay their taxes and not even pay penalties when it is exposed. Obama has not condemned the actions of any of his criminal appointees.

 

That Obama's team vetted and rejected these candidates for their behavior seems to support, rather than refute, an image of competence and integrity.

 

If you must believe that all the dirty laundry was known prior to this selection and vetting process then, by all means, believe what you must.

 

Goodbye credibility.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

It's a good thing we gave the feds all those intrusive powers during the Bush years. Now there's a new law in town, with a different agenda.

 

We did not give the feds anything....they took our civil liberties ......and it wont stop there.....more to come.

 

Some among us gave them away by voting for totalitarians rather than for those who respect liberty.

[jmo]

"That Obama's team vetted and rejected these candidates for their behavior seems to support, rather than refute, an image of competence and integrity."

 

Then why is Geithner running the IRS after failing to pay his own taxes? A few days ago, he made a speech that he is going after tax cheats and havens, but his boss looked the other way on him.

 

Daschle bowed out on his own.

 

Kirk has not been voted on by the Senate, but after vetting revealed he owed 10k in back taxes the administration had no comment, and the Democratic chairman of the Sen. finance committee want to speed his confirmation.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Oh, and BTW, owing back taxes (if in fact, your facts are even remotely correct) isn't a crime (as you stated it was) unless the payer is charged with evasion.

 

Daschle bowed out on his own soooo....the process didn't work? OK, whatever. I guess he had to be publicly garroted for certain people to be satisfied.

 

Goodbye credibility round deux.

Edited March 5, 2009 by tvashtarkatena