# Agree or disagree with Obama but he is providing some leadership. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 28, 2009, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agree-or-disagree-with-obama-but-he-is-providing-some-leadership/487747 "2009-02-28T02:22:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![R.P.McMurphy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7993a0/32.png) [@R.P.McMurphy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/R.P.McMurphy)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agree-or-disagree-with-obama-but-he-is-providing-some-leadership/487747/61 "2009-03-02T03:57:01Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > It wasn’t a 100 page report it was an 1100 page report. And one of my Senators read the first draft. He was unable to get through the final. NOBODY could. That’s the point. **Somebody** wrote it but **“nobody”** read it. 'Splain that. Maybe you should be questioning your illustrious Senator for his lack of leadership. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agree-or-disagree-with-obama-but-he-is-providing-some-leadership/487747/62 "2009-03-02T04:02:13Z")
> [@Spartydog](#): > > **Somebody** wrote it but **“nobody”** read it. 'Splain that. . Members of congress added their wish list of pork without reading what the other little piggies wrote. > [@Spartydog](#): > > Maybe you should be questioning your illustrious Senator for his lack of leadership. That makes no sense at all. He was the only one who came close to reading it. He voted no because of it. My other Senator, who flew in from a funeral to sign it didn’t have a clue. It was the deciding vote. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Understander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3da27b/32.png) [@The\_Understander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Understander)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agree-or-disagree-with-obama-but-he-is-providing-some-leadership/487747/63 "2009-03-02T04:02:47Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > It wasn’t a 100 page report it was an 1100 page report. And one of my Senators read the first draft. He was unable to get through the final. NOBODY could. That’s the point. > > Odd that you mention that because that’s what it looks like his followers are expecting. May I just say that the spokespeople for the Loyal Opposition are fantastically bad at discerning the expectations of those on the left side of the political spectrum? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agree-or-disagree-with-obama-but-he-is-providing-some-leadership/487747/64 "2009-03-02T04:04:08Z")
> [@Enfant Terrible](#): > > May I just say that the spokespeople for the Loyal Opposition are fantastically bad at discerning the expectations of those on the left side of the political spectrum? I don’t think it’s expecting a lot of a politician to understand what they’re voting on. ---
**Author:** ![Pashnish\_Ewing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@Pashnish\_Ewing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pashnish_Ewing)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agree-or-disagree-with-obama-but-he-is-providing-some-leadership/487747/65 "2009-03-02T04:04:23Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > It was cute when the crowds yelled" O BA MA" during the election but now it’s just creepy. It looks like a Hanna Montana concert where voters get excited about blind spending. This is kind of adulation is not healthy from adult voters. This baffles me. You act as if no one had ever chanted for their preferred candidate in the history of presidential politics. Take off the blinders and stick to the (few) legitimate disagreements there are to discuss over the past “two months”. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agree-or-disagree-with-obama-but-he-is-providing-some-leadership/487747/66 "2009-03-02T04:05:59Z")
> [@Pashnish\_Ewing](#): > > This baffles me. You act as if no one had ever chanted for their preferred candidate in the history of presidential politics. Take off the blinders and stick to the (few) legitimate disagreements there are to discuss over the past “two months”. The election is over and yes, I think it’s creepy. ---
**Author:** ![Lamar\_Mundane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lamar\_Mundane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamar_Mundane)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agree-or-disagree-with-obama-but-he-is-providing-some-leadership/487747/67 "2009-03-02T05:18:37Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > It wasn’t a 100 page report it was an 1100 page report. And one of my Senators read the first draft. He was unable to get through the final. NOBODY could. That’s the point. Your senator is a moron. The final version was just a few edits (mostly authored by republicans) different than the first draft. Do you think that the final bill was rewritten from scratch? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agree-or-disagree-with-obama-but-he-is-providing-some-leadership/487747/68 "2009-03-02T05:48:32Z")
> [@Lamar\_Mundane](#): > > Your senator is a moron. The final version was just a few edits (mostly authored by republicans) different than the first draft. > > Do you think that the final bill was rewritten from scratch? Uh huh. You’re calling the only Senator who read the draft a moron. That’s an interesting take on it. So how many pages are “a few edits” and what changed? ---
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agree-or-disagree-with-obama-but-he-is-providing-some-leadership/487747/69 "2009-03-02T06:27:57Z")
So what, Hitler lead his people well, so did a million others. Now I’m not saying Obama is as bad as Hitler, that would be wrong, but the point is, leading people where they want to go is easy. Telling people what they want to hear is ridiculous. RESULTS are what counts, not giving a speech and making you feel good. What has Obama done that other people say Hillary Clinton, or McCain or anyone else couldn’t have done is what counts. So far he’s back off a lot of his campaign promises. His Iraq policy is everyday becoming more and more like a repeat of Bush’s. What happened to his get out of Iraq ASAP he got elected with. I guess now that he’s in power, making a speech is more important than actually DOING something. Remember here is a guy who got elected to the Senate then spent his time in the Senate doing nothing but going on a trip to Kenya at taxpayer expense, running for president and NOT voting for the Iraq war. THIS and Oprah thinking he was cute got him elected. Has he done anything other than offer words? No. As Marcia Brady said “Everyone talks, but results are what count and that’s what you’ll get if you vote for me RESULTS.” So stop with the talk, every speech, which someone else wrote, is less time you spend solving a problem. Leading people down a wrong path is nothing to be proud about and following anyone blindly because your mesmorized by him is to 1930s dictator-like for me. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agree-or-disagree-with-obama-but-he-is-providing-some-leadership/487747/70 "2009-03-02T06:43:14Z")
Seeing as how **Magiver** has implicitly conceded my point through non-response, I’m still really stuck on this: > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Things pissing the right off [are] more regulations, payoffs to Democratic constituencies, and fundamental budgetary dishonesty. Really, **Sam** , I’d honestly like to know what’s kickin’ around in the “right-o-sphere” about these things. Call it attempted inoculation, morbid curiosity, or maybe even masochism, but I’m all ears. Surely you can’t be referring to the “$8B Disneyland-Las Vegas train”, can you? The “ACORN funding”? Executive salary caps for banks that accept Federal funds? The “wresting control of the census”? I’d _hope_ you’re not _that_ far gone, and I have faith that you’re not…assuming you can explain. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agree-or-disagree-with-obama-but-he-is-providing-some-leadership/487747/71 "2009-03-02T07:21:16Z")
No, I’m talking about far more mundane things, such as [wildly optimistic estimates for future GDP growth](http://onlineathens.com/stories/030109/bus_399637012.shtml), or legerdemain like starting a budget baseline with the assumption that Iraq spending would have remained at 2008 levels for ten years (which no one, conservative or liberal, believed), then announcing the real figures and calling that a ‘budget cut’. > [@](#): > > The administration predicted that the overall economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, will shrink by 1.2 percent this year but will grow by a solid 3.2 percent in 2010. That growth would be followed by even stronger increases of 4 percent in 2011, 4.6 percent in 2012 and 4.2 percent in 2013. If those numbers are true, then why in hell was a 1 trillion dollar ‘stimulus’, most of which won’t be spent before next year, even necessary? I mean come on… 3.2% growth next year? NO ONE is predicting that, outside of the White House. 4.6% growth the year after that? Those are economic boom figures. > [@](#): > > By contrast, the consensus of forecasters surveyed by Blue Chip Economic Indicators in February predicted that the GDP will fall by a larger 1.9 percent this year and then increase at weaker rates of 2.1 percent in 2010, 2.9 percent in 2011 and 2012 and 2.8 percent in 2013. > > Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at IHS Global Insight, a major private forecasting firm, called the administration’s forecasts “way too optimistic” and said it could represent a return to the overly optimistic forecasts of previous administrations confronted by surging budget deficits. > > “They used to joke during the Reagan years that the highest ranking woman in the administration was Rosy Scenario,” he said. “We may be seeing a return of Rosy Scenario.” > > Behravesh said his own forecast was that GDP was likely to post a bigger decline this year of possibly as much as 3 percent and then weaker growth of about 2 percent in 2010 and 2.5 percent in 2011. Then there’s the ‘2 trillion in _savings_’ that Obama’s administration claims they have found in the budget over the next 10 years. A very funny kind of ‘savings’, in that what he’s really talking about is tax hikes and winding down the war in Iraq, which was planned for anyway. He implied that he was cutting waste, but in fact is just growing more government. Then there’s the outright lies, such as promising that Americans earning under $250,000 wouldn’t see their taxes rise by one single dime. Except that he hikes taxes on cigarettes and carbon - two taxes that are actually regressive and will hurt the poorest the most. And now the administration is floating the idea of taxing company-provided health insurance, which most certainly will hit the middle class. Speaking of taxes… How insane is it to go after charitable donations, expecially in a recession when charities act as a real lifeline for people displaced by the poor economy? Obama wants to change the deduction on charitable giving so that it’s no longer 100% deductible at your marginal rate, but caps out at 28%. This means less charitable giving, whicih most certainly will hurt people earning under $250,000. But not to worry - Obama’s planning on spending 100 billion of that money by giving it - to charities. So really, this is just the government saying, “hey, we don’t like YOUR charities. So we’re going to take some of that money and give it to the ones WE like.” And then there’s the [2% Illusion](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561551065378405.html?mod=djemEditorialPage). I could go on all day. I thought the stimulus package was the worst piece of legislation I’d ever seen. This budget may be worse. Obama sure works fast. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agree-or-disagree-with-obama-but-he-is-providing-some-leadership/487747/72 "2009-03-02T07:22:17Z")
> [@Markxxx](#): > > So far he’s back off a lot of his campaign promises. His Iraq policy is everyday becoming more and more like a repeat of Bush’s. What happened to his get out of Iraq ASAP he got elected with. Poppycock and balderdash. I’d like for you to provide what you think qualifies as “a lot” of campaign promises on which he’s reneged thus far. Here…I’ll even give you one – he’s loosened his “no lobbyists” rule. Clearly, you’re in possession of a long list of others, and it should be no problem to share it with the rest of the class. Right? You specifically cite Iraq. His withdrawal timeline has gone from 16 to 19 months. If you think that beyond that time adjustment he’s substantially altered what he campaigned on, then you either: (1) weren’t listening or (2) eat stupid food for breakfast. And if you’re seriously equating his policy to Bush’s, then the issue isn’t just your morning dietary intake – you’ve likely been brain-dead for the past 7 years. At any rate, will Iraq withdrawal actually happen in that timeframe? We’ll find out…and if it doesn’t, _then_ you get a free ride on the _waaaaaah_-mbulance and you can screech to your heart’s content. If that comes to pass, I’m sure you’ll have lots of company…and I may just join in myself. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agree-or-disagree-with-obama-but-he-is-providing-some-leadership/487747/73 "2009-03-02T07:51:01Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > It wasn’t a 100 page report it was an 1100 page report. And one of my Senators read the first draft. He was unable to get through the final. NOBODY could. That’s the point. That is the point. No matter what the deadline date is, do you think it is a good use of the time of the very limited number of congressmen to read every draft of an 1100 page bill? CEOs don’t read 100 page reports because they are lazy, but because they are good time managers. You seem to admit that there was time to read the first draft. I suppose they’ve discovered change bars in Washington, so there was plenty of time to review the changes, if one wanted to. I suspect 1000 of those pages consisted of the whereas and other legal details needed, and had nothing to do with the meat of the bill. Not to mention that this last minute stuff happens all the time. I trust you don’t expect them to read every page of the budget, do you? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agree-or-disagree-with-obama-but-he-is-providing-some-leadership/487747/74 "2009-03-02T07:53:48Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I don’t think it’s expecting a lot of a politician to understand what they’re voting on. You think you have to read every word of an 1100 page bill to understand it? Then you surely must agree that Bush never understood anything. ---
**Author:** ![Crocodiles\_And\_Boulevards](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ee7513/32.png) [@Crocodiles\_And\_Boulevards](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crocodiles_And_Boulevards)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agree-or-disagree-with-obama-but-he-is-providing-some-leadership/487747/75 "2009-03-02T08:13:43Z")
Does anyone else think it’s completely reasonable to be able to read a 1,100 page document in 4 days? That’s not even counting the possibility of having your aides read it for content you’d be specifically interested in knowing about. Further edits to the bill would amount to what? A few more pages? Because if an 1,100 page document is too long for our congress, I wonder what kind of dunderheads we elected to run the country. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agree-or-disagree-with-obama-but-he-is-providing-some-leadership/487747/76 "2009-03-02T08:29:06Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > No, I’m talking about far more mundane things… That’s great, thank you for responding with a substantive post. And thank goodness you’ve not gone (totally) off the rails. 😉 As far as the accuracy of budget projections go, I’m not really qualified to judge, but I’ll be on the lookout for more information. (Don’t take this personally, but neither the White House’s projections nor a single AP article – even if it cites a “consensus of private forecasters” – alone is enough for me.) > [@](#): > > Then there’s the ‘2 trillion in _savings_’ that Obama’s administration claims they have found in the budget over the next 10 years. A very funny kind of ‘savings’, in that what he’s really talking about is tax hikes and winding down the war in Iraq, which was planned for anyway. He implied that he was cutting waste, but in fact is just growing more government. Do you have a cite for that? I’d heard the $2T figure (I even linked to it in another thread), but hadn’t heard/seen anything about the source. I’d like to know more. > [@](#): > > Then there’s the outright lies, such as promising that Americans earning under $250,000 wouldn’t see their taxes rise by one single dime. Except that he hikes taxes on cigarettes and carbon - two taxes that are actually regressive and will hurt the poorest the most. And now the administration is floating the idea of taxing company-provided health insurance, which most certainly will hit the middle class. While all of these are also news to me (and therefore out of my sphere of meaningful commentary), you do realize that it’s not necessarily the case that said Americans’ **net** taxes will increase because of those things (or even at all), right? With that said, as far as budgetary matters go, I can only once again thank you for your response and lamely try to keep up. As you say, things are certainly moving fast. I hesitate to ask, but feel compelled (especially since you offered to “go on all day”) – what about the “_payoffs to Democratic constituencies_”? (I don’t really have to ask about regulation as I _know_ there’s more a-comin’. Although I don’t know what it is yet, I’m quite sure we’ll see a thread or two about it in the near future.) ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agree-or-disagree-with-obama-but-he-is-providing-some-leadership/487747/77 "2009-03-02T09:14:33Z")
> [@Crocodiles\_And\_Boulevards](#): > > Does anyone else think it’s completely reasonable to be able to read a 1,100 page document in 4 days? > . Obama took 3 days to sign it so yes, they had time to ACTUALLY READ THE BILL. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agree-or-disagree-with-obama-but-he-is-providing-some-leadership/487747/78 "2009-03-02T10:18:57Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Obama took 3 days to sign it so yes, they had time to ACTUALLY READ THE BILL. Weren’t those 3 days _after_ the vote? ---
**Author:** ![LouisB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@LouisB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LouisB)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agree-or-disagree-with-obama-but-he-is-providing-some-leadership/487747/79 "2009-03-02T13:11:10Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Not aware of any CEO’s who ran for President. the last 5 Presidents were Governor’s or former VP’s. I don’t believe our former president, GW Bush, was very successful in running any business at all. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agree-or-disagree-with-obama-but-he-is-providing-some-leadership/487747/80 "2009-03-02T13:30:51Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Obama took 3 days to sign it so yes, they had time to ACTUALLY READ THE BILL. Reading the bill after it has been voted on and is sitting on the O’s desk is a little too late do you think? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agree-or-disagree-with-obama-but-he-is-providing-some-leadership/487747.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agree-or-disagree-with-obama-but-he-is-providing-some-leadership/487747.md?page=5)