Washington DC Culture-Ethics-Transparency

[SentinelMind]

Some may say its too early to tell, but has Obama really provided enough change in tone in the way of business to Washington DC? I'm not talking about specific policies,...Obama clearly has changed several initiatives already (funding for international abortions, closing...well...eventually closing Gitmo, he'll likely change other things)

But Obama has broken two key promises already with regard to administrative. First is transparency in pushing forward legislation.....the biggest expansion of federal government was rushed with no oversight. Second is influence of lobbyists in his administration. Obama has hired several lobbyists, Giechtner's Chief of Staff is a former lobbyist.

Then there's the other minor discussion of creating more bipartisanship, which is taking place in another thread. IMO, he's failed to transform the discussion and tone in Washington DC.

Do you think he's been successful or will become more successful in the future?

 

[Bathead]

I think you said it right in your first sentence, it's too early to tell.

 

[hippie_hunter]

On the issue of partisanship, Pelosi is completely to blame on that one. I think that if she weren't completely alienating the Republicans, Obama would have the bipartisan support he wanted.

 

[The Senator]

But Obama has broken two key promises already with regard to administrative. First is transparency in pushing forward legislation.....the biggest expansion of federal government was rushed with no oversight.

That's not even close to true...

Second is influence of lobbyists in his administration. Obama has hired several lobbyists, Giechtner's Chief of Staff is a former lobbyist.

None of the lobbyists employed in Obama's administration are currently registered, though, which means that he is not breaking his promise. In order for them to be lobbyists, they have to be registered.

 

[StorminNorman]

If Congressmen and Senators are going to vote on almost a trillion dollars of spending without reading the damn thing, why would we expect Washington DC to do anything properly?

Obama is a fraud. A lying, hypocritical fraud that very well may destroy this country. Our leadership has failed us, and we have failed ourselves by electing and re-electing these corrupt fools.

 

[The Senator]

Senators and Congressmen have staff who are responsible for reading those bills and reporting important information back to them... plus, I don't think several of them can read...

 

[StorminNorman]

I want to find a single Congressional Staff that actually read through every page of the stimulus bill.

I want to find a single one.

 

[Addendum]

I want to find a single Congressional Staff that actually read through every page of the stimulus bill.

I want to find a single one.

So what's stopping you from asking them?

 

[The Senator]

I want to find a Republican who wasn't waiting for the first chance he or she had to scapegoat Obama for all the evils in the world, and didn't plan on using the stimulus as the perfect excuse to do so.

I want to find a single one.

 

[StorminNorman]

I want to find a Republican who wasn't waiting for the first chance he or she had to scapegoat Obama for all the evils in the world, and didn't plan on using the stimulus as the perfect excuse to do so.

I want to find a single one.

I personally know of one Republican Congressman that was cautiously optimistic about Obama's Presidency; but when you give something as important stimulus to Nancy Pelosi you fail. Sorry, but you don't give something that vital to a partisan hack.

 

[The Senator]

I find it hard to believe that every Republican who voted against the stimulus was against this bill, and voted against it out of principle. Especially when you look at those who voted in favor of stimulus and bailout packages in the last Congress, and see that they voted against Obama's stimulus plan. Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House then, and some of them had no problem supporting those massive spending packages. The reverse can also be said for many Democrats, who voted against those previous bills but supported this one.

And what's different? The President...

 

[StorminNorman]

I find it hard to believe that every Republican who voted against the stimulus was against this bill, and voted against it out of principle.

I think a lot of Republican's voted against the bill because they did not believe in it. I think more Republicans' voted against the bill because their offices were flooded with calls against the bill.

Especially when you look at those who voted in favor of stimulus and bailout packages in the last Congress, and see that they voted against Obama's stimulus plan.

Again, far far far less public scrutiny with those.

Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House then, and some of them had no problem supporting those massive spending packages. The reverse can also be said for many Democrats, who voted against those previous bills but supported this one.

And what's different? The President...

And the scrutiny.

But regardless basically what it comes down to is you have a President who is a fraud and you have a congress that is fueled by partisanship rather than actually caring about fixing this country. I truly, truly fear the future of this country and the incompetence and corruption in Washington is the cause. I hoped Obama could do fix it, I really wanted to believe he was different and that I was wrong about him during his campaign - but he has made me look foolish and naive. Good job, Barry.

 

[SentinelMind]

That's not even close to true...

...the largest spending bill in US history, that's better...

None of the lobbyists employed in Obama's administration are currently registered, though, which means that he is not breaking his promise. In order for them to be lobbyists, they have to be registered.

so cancelling lobbyist registration immediately before appointment...like oh...simply paying taxes before being appointed to the Cabinet.. is an acceptable loophole for him to fulfill his promise? Change I can believe in?

I find it hard to believe that every Republican who voted against the stimulus was against this bill, and voted against it out of principle. Especially when you look at those who voted in favor of stimulus and bailout packages in the last Congress, and see that they voted against Obama's stimulus plan. Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House then, and some of them had no problem supporting those massive spending packages. The reverse can also be said for many Democrats, who voted against those previous bills but supported this one.

And what's different? The President...

So if you favored one piece of bail-out legislation limited for one industry.....you should favor every and any spending package concocted to supposedly save the entire economy, ones filled with barrels of pork? We should be glad some member of the Republican Party have actually decided to get back to principle, figure out what their identity is, and correct their mistake. Its unfortunate a Democrat President was needed to do this, but that's usually what it takes to see the writing on the wall.

Barack Obama is a smart, disciplined, and hardworking guy. But he's a shady politician just like everybody else and he hasn't changed the culture of partisan bickering, corruption, behind the door meetings and legislation. but that fact isn't what truly bothers me....its his agenda that does. I'm pretty confident he's more extreme liberal than he has been putting on in the last few weeks and during the entire campaign and if you have a smart person with an extreme agenda,...that's dangerous for everyone involved.

 

[The Senator]

so cancelling lobbyist registration immediately before appointment.... is an acceptable loophole for him to fulfill his promise? Change I can believe in?

I'm not going to address the tax issue because I have criticized those who had not paid their taxes in the past.

On the issue of lobbyists, I don't really understand how you can argue he went against his campaign promise. If Obama said he wasn't going to employ former McDonalds employees in his administration but hired former Burger King employees, would he be breaking a promise? Obama said he wouldn't employ lobbyists. Those who were nominated were not registered lobbyists at the time of their nomination.

So if you favored one piece of bail-out legislation limited for one industry.....you should favor every and any spending package concocted to supposedly save the entire economy, ones filled with barrels of pork? We should be glad some member of the Republican Party have actually decided to get back to principle, figure out what their identity is, and correct their mistake. Its unfortunate a Democrat President was needed to do this, but that's usually what it takes to see the writing on the wall.

Absolutely not. The only thing is, I find it odd that Republicans who voted for similar bills filled with similar pork barrel spending had no problem voting for stimulus and bailout bills under the guidance of George W. Bush, but are now outraged and dead-set against Obama's stimulus package.

I doubt that they all had a change in heart.

 

[The Senator]

I think a lot of Republican's voted against the bill because they did not believe in it. I think more Republicans' voted against the bill because their offices were flooded with calls against the bill.

And you claim Obama made you naive. If you are willing to believe that most Republicans who changed their record on spending packages did so because they didn't believe in it or wanted to reflect the opinions of their constituents, rather than doing so to adhere to the party line, then I really don't see how we can continue this conversation.

And the scrutiny.

But regardless basically what it comes down to is you have a President who is a fraud and you have a congress that is fueled by partisanship rather than actually caring about fixing this country. I truly, truly fear the future of this country and the incompetence and corruption in Washington is the cause. I hoped Obama could do fix it, I really wanted to believe he was different and that I was wrong about him during his campaign - but he has made me look foolish and naive. Good job, Barry.

And as I said-- I find it hard to believe that Republicans weren't looking for the first chance they had to throw Obama under the bus and shout "corrupt socialist dictator" into the wind. Right now, there are very few Republicans in Congress who have an iota of integrity. Thankfully, the general public can see through the charade, as understandable by the Republicans' abysmal approval ratings.

The Democrats need to fix how they do business in Congress... but the Republicans need a lobotomy and a facelift before the American public becomes willing to take them seriously again...

 

[Excel]

Nancy Pelosi makes it very hard for Repulicans to support when Democrats are doing based on their principles. It has little to do with Obama. Also, many of the Republicans who voted against the Bill supported the idea of a stimulus package, but said they simply did not support that one.

The Democrats need to fix how they do business in Congress... but the Republicans need a lobotomy and a facelift before the American public becomes willing to take them seriously again...

Pretty much sums it up.

 

[The Senator]

I also doubt a lot of Democrats voted for the stimulus out of principle or to reflect what their constituents want. Three good examples off the top of my head are Baron Hill, Allen Boyd, and Travis Childers.

 

[Excel]

I know; but to blame Obama for bipartisan ship is not a logical conclusion when Pelosi is leading the fight.

IMO, he's failed to transform the discussion and tone in Washington DC.

Of course you think that. He hasn't even been if an office a month, chill on that one boss.

 

[StorminNorman]

And you claim Obama made you naive. If you are willing to believe that most Republicans who changed their record on spending packages did so because they didn't believe in it or wanted to reflect the opinions of their constituents, rather than doing so to adhere to the party line, then I really don't see how we can continue this conversation.

Fine then, we won't continue the conversation.

And as I said-- I find it hard to believe that Republicans weren't looking for the first chance they had to throw Obama under the bus and shout "corrupt socialist dictator" into the wind. Right now, there are very few Republicans in Congress who have an iota of integrity. Thankfully, the general public can see through the charade, as understandable by the Republicans' abysmal approval ratings.

The public doesn't need to trust Republicans to turn on the Democrats. If Obama continues on the path he is going down now he will have serious trouble in 2012 - he had an opportunity in this Stimulus Bill to work with both parties to form a bipartisan solution to the economic problem and instead he toed the party line which is exactly what he said he wouldn't do.

If Obama really thinks it was his policies that got him elected he will lose in 2012. Obama was elected because he said he wanted to change the way Washington worked and people believed that message, so far he hasn't backed those words up with action.

The Democrats need to fix how they do business in Congress... but the Republicans need a lobotomy and a facelift before the American public becomes willing to take them seriously again...

I think you underestimate the GOP greatly.

Nancy Pelosi makes it very hard for Repulicans to support when Democrats are doing based on their principles. It has little to do with Obama. Also, many of the Republicans who voted against the Bill supported the idea of a stimulus package, but said they simply did not support that one.

Obama is more powerful than Nancy Pelosi, if Obama had wanted bipartisan cooperation on the Stimulus he could of made it happen, instead he allowed Nancy Pelosi to control the bill which he knew would lead to bitter partisanship.

I also doubt a lot of Democrats voted for the stimulus out of principle or to reflect what their constituents want. Three good examples off the top of my head are Baron Hill, Allen Boyd, and Travis Childers.

Allen Boyd is my congressman and how he gets elected is beyond me. The guy is a scumbag.

I know; but to blame Obama for bipartisan ship is not a logical conclusion when Pelosi is leading the fight.

If Obama is not responsible for actively trying to divide the congress with this bill then he is at least responsible for allowing it to happen.

Of course you think that. He hasn't even been if an office a month, chill on that one boss.

No, I am not going to chill on this. The Stimulus Bill is one of the most important bills Obama will EVER sign, why should I give him a pass on a huge, important piece of legistlation simply because he is new on the job? The guy is proving that is promises mean nothing, that "Change" is actually the same old partisan **** that has destroyed this country.

 

[Malice]

The fact that the vote was to be held after less than 24 hours of the bill redesigned...and demanding a vote is just down right stupid...

Give them time to look at it at least. That is partisan politics at its worst.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I find it hard to believe that every Republican who voted against the stimulus was against this bill, and voted against it out of principle. Especially when you look at those who voted in favor of stimulus and bailout packages in the last Congress, and see that they voted against Obama's stimulus plan. Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House then, and some of them had no problem supporting those massive spending packages. The reverse can also be said for many Democrats, who voted against those previous bills but supported this one.

And what's different? The President...

The big difference was that in the previous big spending bills, the Democrats were forced to work with Bush and the Congressional Republicans because they didn't have the majority needed nor the person to just sign away a Democratic agenda.

Now, we have a a larger Democratic majority and a Democratic President in Obama. Obama isn't the problem. He never was. The man has tried to reach out to Republicans along with Harry Reid (who has to because he doesn't have 60 guaranteed votes). The problem lies completely with Nancy Pelosi who has the power to just sweep the Republicans away and do whatever she wants. Her refusal to work with them along with the manner that she does it in is incredibly insulting. Wanting to rush the stimulus bill that includes sooooo much wasteful pork barrel spending and not allowing anyone the time and effort to properly read what's in the bill all so she can go to freaking Italy (regardless of the reasoning).

Honestly, put yourself in the House Republicans position (screw the Senate Republicans, they're a bunch of stubborn jackasses). The person in charge pushes you aside. Won't let you properly examine what's up for a vote. Won't compromise. Refuses to be bipartisan, despite the wishes of the Senate Majority Leader and the President. And the bill itself goes against your ideals and principals. Would you vote for it? I think not.

I said it before and I say it again. If Nancy Pelosi did what Obama and Reid were trying to do and compromise with the Republicans we would have see much more significant Republican support in both the House and the Senate.

 

[The Senator]

Wanting to rush the stimulus bill that includes sooooo much wasteful pork barrel spending and not allowing anyone the time and effort to properly read what's in the bill all so she can go to freaking Italy (regardless of the reasoning).

I don't really think there is any merit to this accusation. Even if the bill had been stalled, Pelosi and several other Congressional Democrats would have gone to Italy. Congress is out of session this week, that's why the trip was scheduled for then, and why the vote for the bill was scheduled for Friday.

 

[SentinelMind]

I know; but to blame Obama for bipartisan ship is not a logical conclusion when Pelosi is leading the fight.



Of course you think that. He hasn't even been if an office a month, chill on that one boss.

No, I'll voice my concern on what I want, thank you very much.
Do you understand this is the largest spending bill in US history? This bill is over 1000 pages, no Congressman has ever read it in entirity, it is the most partisan spending bill in history, and you can't even read it as of right now? Do you understand Obama broke his campaign promise to have millions of American review important legislation before its signed? I don't think any legislation he's signed so far has even met his campaign promise.
This legislation can be the most important legislation of his entire term, and it was rushed in a partisan manner, using the same tactics he claimed he was against? If this bill of this priority can't meet the test, what should we expect in the future?

 

[Addendum]

No member of Congress read the Patriot Act before they voted on it, nor any other bill since this nation's inception

So why act like Congress not reading bills before they vote is something NEW?

 

[SentinelMind]

I'm not sure about the "no other bill in this nation's history" part.
some people are upset because they thought this was change we could believe in.

EDIT: Actually, the only people who are upset are those who aren't huge Obama partisans.