Where have I heard this one before?

[P562045]

We need to stimulate the economy by pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into it?

No the answer is not Mr. Paulson.

It is none other than Obama.

I must ask the basic question.

How is the first hundred of billions of dollars being poured into the financial sector going so far?

And don't give me the crap we don't know yet. The congress promised amazing oversight and we would know within a few months because they were not going to be getting all of the money at one time.

One last question.

How long will this thread get where we have examples of Obama acting like Bush.

Oh wait nevermind Bush is very evil and is the sole reason we are in all of these crapups in the first place.

It is a great comfort to me that Obama thinks along the same lines as Bush.

Mr. Gates should not have been the one to stay on it sure sounds to me that Mr. Paulson should have been the one retained by Obama.

"President-elect Barack Obama on Thursday will urge Congress to move quickly on his economic aid package once he takes office, warning that a failure to do so would have devastating long-term consequences for the nation."

I must ask the question yet again.

Where have I heard this one before?

Does what Obama is saying sound anything remotely close to what Mr. Paulson was saying about the financial markets?

Well I would not be surprised at all if something like this never becomes law. I would love to hear the screams that republicans screwed it up.

That will be the real reason something like this does not become law; along with the idea has been tried already and we have not exactly seening glowing results yet but of course Obama is so different than the president we have now it will work with him being president so much better that the results we are or are not seeing already.

Obama sounds like Bush story number one of many more to come I am very afraid.

[P562045]

What is part of Obama's stimulus package to get the economy moving again involve?

It is none other than tax cuts.

"The president-elect will propose roughly $300 billion in tax cuts for individuals and businesses. He has not publicly put a price tag on his overall stimulus plan, though his advisers have said they expect it to fall between $675 billion and $775 billion, 40% of which would be in tax cuts."

I am trying to remember if Bush ever proposed tax cuts before?

The answer to the question is simply yes.

Story Here

[P562045]

Obama repealed a law late yesterday by Reagan the Evil that Bush the Evil reinstated about eight years ago that said taxpayers money should not be used for abortions overseas.

No big shock that Obama would do this. Obama said throughout his presidential campaign for president that he supported that a women had the right to choose. But this article mentions something rather interesting about a law that was passed back in 1973.

"But in fact, since 1973, federal law has banned the use of U.S. taxpayer funds for abortions in other countries."

As we should be well aware of Bush the Evil took countless actions that did not comply with current law(s) at the time. Now Obama on his third full day in office takes his first action as president that is like a Bush the Evil has taken in the past.

Article here

Talk about change you can believe in.

[hork]

Originally Posted by P562045

"But in fact, since 1973, federal law has banned the use of U.S. taxpayer funds for abortions in other countries."

actually that's a bit misleading. it didn't prohibit the use of tax dollars (and here's the kicker) it only prohibited it if the organization receiving US dollars used their own resources for the same reason. in short, it is okay for US tax payers to fund their abortion procedures just not okay for them to fund it themselves. if anything, that should be what ticks the US taxpayer off.

as for the executive order, it was hardly a shock, it's been back and forth with every change in administration (other than bush's) since its inception.

[P562045]

So sorry for throwing something out there that could be perceived as misleading but I do have to have some faith in what I read but that of course is not always the case as in this particular situation. Well the article could have explained the 1973 law a lot better but that is not good excuse now is it?

Just asking a question to try to clarify in my own mind. So if an organization overseas had not used their own money before to perform abortions it was then o.k. for them to use taxpayers money to do so?

Now if my question is correct then Obama is only signing something that is screwing with only part of the 1973 law and not the law in its entirety.

Thank you for making me feel so much better about something this.

[hork]

Originally Posted by P562045

So sorry for throwing something out there that could be perceived as misleading but I do have to have some faith in what I read but that of course is not always the case as in this particular situation. Well the article could have explained the 1973 law a lot better but that is not good excuse now is it?

Just asking a question to try to clarify in my own mind. So if an organization overseas had not used their own money before to perform abortions it was then o.k. for them to use taxpayers money to do so?

Now if my question is correct then Obama is only signing something that is screwing with only part of the 1973 law and not the law in its entirety.

Thank you for making me feel so much better about something this.

for the record, i was referring to the article as being a bit misleading. i probably should have copied the quoted section from the article rather than your post. sorry for any misunderstanding


your understand is partially correct at least with the 1973 law. what you're missing is that obama isnt (and can't) change the law as written. what he's doing is issuing and executive order basically reinstating the law that reagan used an exec order to supercede, which clinton followed with an order to reinstate, which georgie countered with an order to supercede. leading to obama's order to reinstate, which will ultimately lead to the next right-winged administration likely issuing an order to superced.

[P562045]

No I did not feel that you thought I was trying to deceive people.

But the part of the article that I quoted did not explain the 1973 law fully now did it? The article only told part of the story to make it sensational.

It took me a while to even comprehend what you meant when you described what the actual 1973 law says.

The 1973 law is rather convoluted to me as is the other part about why people should be allowed to have an abortion as long as they don't fund it themselves.

I guess this is one very rare case where I don't understand why people would want such a law in the first place so I guess that is why I am having such trouble with this.

And yes it is quite different for a president or other top level government official to reinstate a past law than trying to rewrite the law which is what I was trying to say. But I must say it makes little difference to me when it comes to the 1973 law partly because it is such a poorly written law.

[hork]

Originally Posted by P562045

The 1973 law is rather convoluted to me as is the other part about why people should be allowed to have an abortion as long as they don't fund it themselves.

it's washington, would one expect anything less?

[P562045]

Originally Posted by hork

it's washington, would one expect anything less?

Washington has been convoluted for a while I guess then.

Then there is also another aspect of the 1973 law. Both sides get to claim a little bit of a victory as well. But then again the other side of the political spectrum gets something they want as well.

What I have just described has been a part of Washington for a long time as well.

[P562045]

Well the scare the people tactics by Obama continues.

One of the very first things Obama wanted the people to focus on was this rotten economy. And if we do not do as Obama says there will be even more severe consequences latter on if we do not fully adopt Obama's rescue plan for the economy. I must ask the darn question though will there be any consequences of Obama's own bailout plan?

What was the hallmark for Bush when it comes to his scare the people tactic?

It was none other than the Bush's so called "War On Terror".

Has this all of sudden just because Obama is president just magically gone away. I know the envoy will arrive in Cairo even today and we will have some cease fire agreement until the next time one side or the other starts to be aggressive towards the other again. Then we will just go on and on and on about how this has been going on for how long now. But people should remember one thing about Obama. He ran around talking about how he was the one that was going to actually change so many difficult challenges we now face as a country.

So Obama yesterday started talking about his energy policy we should adopt. Now I am going to type what Obama actually said in the first part of this video, "It falls on us to choose wether to risk the peril that comes with our current course or to seize the promise of energy independence for the sake of our security, our economy, and our planet we must have the courage and commitment to change."

This video talks about what happened on Obama's seventh day in office. What I just talked about is at the very beginning of this video.

Video Here

So let me see if I have this right. If we do not agree to Obama's energy plan that will make us less safe? I must then ask the question what were to happen if we pretty much just waste this money for the express purpose that we can say we are somewhat more energy independent than we were before.

Could this money be spent on other things that are more important or not? I will let others decide for themselves about my last question.

Talk about change in Washington. We have a president that has been president for a week and he has already tried to scare some people on both the economy and what our energy policy as well.

Talk about change you can believe in.

[P562045]

Well Obama has tried to make some positions that may or may not be under oversight by the congress.

Well Car Czar was scrapped but I am sure Obama is trying something similar in other areas as well.

Health Care and Alternative Energy would be my guesses.

I would just hope that Obama when naming these people would not give congress the good old executive privilege bit that Bush used countless times when it came to some of Bush's dealings with congress.

It could be somewhat dangerous for someone in the executive branch to have their only really authority is the president right? This person may also not have to answer to the congress as well.

Story Here

I am not really surprised that Obama would even think of doing something like this though.

In one of my most heated discussions last year. I said under no uncertain terms that when we look back at it Obama will be like Bush far more than we would ever want to realize.

[P562045]

Well Secretary Clinton was in Egypt and she called for a two-state solution when it comes to the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Mrs. Clinton said this, "We will vigorously pursue a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

Is this some new concept or have I heard this before?

And let's just say for the sake of argument that this does happen. How long will it be before violence is started once again by one side or the other.

There has been great violence by both sides and all of sudden this is not going to matter to people any more. Well this could well happen but that would take a very long time for it to actually happen.

Now I would of course be more than happy if it really did happen this way but this has been going on for over sixty years now in one form or another. I am talking about the violence on both sides here.

People may want to ask themselves the very difficult question of why their is such violence on both sides in the first place.

Then there is the very difficult situation of where the head of the Palestinians will have their government. This is just one of the obstacles that needs to be addressed and I have mentioned at least one other one as well.

And if there was some way that both sides could agree to why has this not happened already?

Another very difficult question to answer as well.

Story Here