More Smoke From President Obama

[Gaspar]

Is everything smoke with this guy? 

He signs an executive order so that he can make a speech about how he's cutting spending by eliminating waste, but when you look at the order he signed, it bans 12 agencies from spending money on "Swag" (promotional and marketing items), that sounds great, but it does not cut spending. 

In his speech he talked about how it would save an estimated $4 billion dollars in tax payer money.  That's a lie, because it only bans them from spending that money on swag items, it does not eliminate that money from their budgets, in fact, it gives them the power to spend that money.

Every speech he gives is for the sheep.  Amazing.

[Townsend]

Funny, that's what we say about your unsupported posts.

Well...not really all that funny.

[we vs us]

Wow.  That's, just . . . . wow.  

EDIT:  In other words:  "Everything Obama does is wrong.  Even if it seems right, it will turn out badly in the end.  Because everything Obama does is wrong." 

[heironymouspasparagus]

Wow.  That's, just . . . . wow. 

Hey!  Quit taking my quotes!

[heironymouspasparagus]

Ohhh, go ahead...that's ok.

[guido911]

On Wednesday, President Obama signed an executive order cutting federal spending on things like promotional plaques and mugs, cellphones and iPads, official travel, and chauffeured cars for senior officials.

"It doesn't replace the importance of the work that Congress needs to do in coming up with a balanced, bold plan to reduce our deficit," Mr. Obama said in a ceremony in the Oval Office, "but it indicates once again that there are things we can do right now that will actually deliver better government more efficiently."

In fact, the administration said, only a small portion of the $4 billion in annual savings will go toward reducing the deficit. Rather, the money will be spent on other programs, like helping veterans re-enter the work force or improving the nation's infrastructure, which the White House contends are more worthwhile.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/us/politics/obama-orders-savings-of-4-billion-for-use-elsewhere.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

[Gaspar]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/us/politics/obama-orders-savings-of-4-billion-for-use-elsewhere.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

You should have waited longer.  I like to hear the starlings chortle for a while first. 

[nathanm]

Amazing how it's such a bad thing to spend money on more important things instead of less important things. By the way, the Supreme Court has ruled on more than one occasion that the executive must spend appropriated funds. Something about the power of the purse.

[Conan71]

Amazing how it's such a bad thing to spend money on more important things instead of less important things. By the way, the Supreme Court has ruled on more than one occasion that the executive must spend appropriated funds. Something about the power of the purse.

Any time a government can re-order it's priorities for better uses of resources, I'm all for it.  Unfortunately, with the corrupt nature of our federal government, I'm highly skeptical that any re-apportionment of funds will only come at the behest of well-connected lobbyists.

Sort of like the nationwide broadband initiative.  Is it really to make high speed internet accessible to every American?  Of course not, it's to get the government to line the pockets of service providers and equipment manufacturers and suppliers by subsidizing the cost of providing those services to people who couldn't otherwise afford to get high speed to their rural area.

[nathanm]

Any time a government can re-order it's priorities for better uses of resources, I'm all for it.  Unfortunately, with the corrupt nature of our federal government, I'm highly skeptical that any re-apportionment of funds will only come at the behest of well-connected lobbyists.

Which is why I'm fully behind OWS in their efforts to raise the issue of revisiting Citizens United. The fish are swimming in dirty water, so there's a limit to how clean they can be. Clean out the tank, and perhaps they will be able to see beyond their noses.

[Gaspar]

Amazing how it's such a bad thing to spend money on more important things instead of less important things. By the way, the Supreme Court has ruled on more than one occasion that the executive must spend appropriated funds. Something about the power of the purse.

No. . no. .dude, I like the fact that he's eliminating that useless spending.  My point is that it's the ultimate opportunity to remove 4 billion in spending all together, and even that short step is impossible for this president.

[Conan71]

Which is why I'm fully behind OWS in their efforts to raise the issue of revisiting Citizens United. The fish are swimming in dirty water, so there's a limit to how clean they can be. Clean out the tank, and perhaps they will be able to see beyond their noses.

You and I agree on Citizens United.  Where I'm getting fuzzy is that on Cain's donation page it says the following in bold:

"Contributions to Friends of Herman Cain are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal or state income tax purposes. An individual may contribute up to $2500 per election (the primary and the general are separate elections). By submitting your contribution, you agree that the first $2500 is designated for the primary, and any additional amount up to $2500 is designated for the general election. Federal law prohibits contributions from corporations, federal government contractors, labor unions, and foreign nationals."

Or did CU simply lift the veil on corporations or unions being able to directly buy issue ads?

And aside from CU, the lobbyists have far too much power in DC.  A massive overhaul of lobbying needs to take place, but you can't find a lobbyist who will take up the cause. 

[Townsend]

other programs, like helping veterans re-enter the work force or improving the nation's infrastructure

Interesting that Gaspar suddenly finds that wasteful.

[Townsend]

And aside from CU, the lobbyists have far too much power in DC.  A massive overhaul of lobbying needs to take place, but you can't find a lobbyist who will take up the cause. 

100%

[nathanm]

My point is that it's the ultimate opportunity to remove 4 billion in spending all together, and even that short step is impossible for this president.

Read my last post more carefully and you'll see why your accusation is utterly stupid.

Conan: Even after McCain-Feingold, issue ads purchased by corporations and unions were considered kosher, but they were not allowed to advocate for or against a specific candidate within the 60 day quiet period. Citizens United overturned that part of the law, so they can now spend unlimited sums on ads for or against specific candidates.

Ironically, this is all pretty much the one thing that the vast majority of the electorate would get behind, but the partisan sniping prevents us from presenting a united front against the lobbying and ridiculous sums of money spent on elections.