# Let's make a list of programs that don't work that will be eliminated under Obama! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 13, 2009, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-make-a-list-of-programs-that-dont-work-that-will-be-eliminated-under-obama/489318 "2009-03-13T11:22:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-make-a-list-of-programs-that-dont-work-that-will-be-eliminated-under-obama/489318/61 "2009-03-14T21:00:43Z")
How about packaging up debts into items resembling bonds ( bonds usually being seen as fairly secrue if not all that exciting) just to get around the rules off liquidity so that no-one actually had any idea of the risks they were holding. That strikes me as at the very least making toxic debt look secure when they were base on assets with no value. The creatins and inflation of no value assets is the creation of money, like it or not. The lending of money for interest creates money, but the unwise lending of money inflates the prices of assets - more money chasing fewer items. Risk taking when risks as not quantified means they cannot be properly and prudently insured, wonder how that played out? Meantime in Spain, their rules on liquidity were not relaxed, their system was not deregualted to that same extent as the US and UK - and whilst their banks did hurt, nothing like the same as the US/UK and they have managed a few buyouts at bargain basement prices. ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-make-a-list-of-programs-that-dont-work-that-will-be-eliminated-under-obama/489318/62 "2009-03-14T21:05:27Z")
> [@AskNott](#): > > **Squink** said crooks, not bankers. Bernie Madoff created fake money. He sent out fake statements to his victims about the successful fictitious investments in his fund. > > Thousands of crooked mortgage brokers set up phony assessments, straw buyers, and fraudulently arranged mortgages. Properties were sold and resold, with higher prices each time, and new mortgages each time, but the properties never really changed hands at all. That may sound as if you can’t make money that way, but when you get fat commissions on every mortgage you arrange, it’s very lucrative. > > These things should have been impossible. Regulations were cut away, though, and the funding for enforcement of the remaining rules was slashed. With no enforcement, it’s the same as having no rules. Bernie Madoff did not create fake money. Bernie Madoff stole money. He took money from investors. Then he spent it. A fake account statement is not money. He did not create ‘fake money’. Bankers did create fake money. How did they do that? So I’ll ask again, how did bankers create fake money? How does that process happen? ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-make-a-list-of-programs-that-dont-work-that-will-be-eliminated-under-obama/489318/63 "2009-03-14T21:31:54Z")
Lets end the waste of money and illusion of safety this extra airport surveillance is supposed to provide. I don’t know how much I’m paying the guy that makes sure grandma doesn’t get on the plane with hand lotion but it’s too much. ---
**Author:** ![Ocean\_Annie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8797f3/32.png) [@Ocean\_Annie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ocean_Annie)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-make-a-list-of-programs-that-dont-work-that-will-be-eliminated-under-obama/489318/64 "2009-03-14T22:21:49Z")
> [@welby](#): > > He never said **all** , he said that he’d go “line by line to make sure we aren’t spending money unwisley.” That’s from the first presidential debate. > > He’s wavered. The omnibus had a few, the budget a lot more than a few. In neither case did Obama identify or eliminate an earmark. So apparently - what? They’re all justified? Or he just didn’t do it? > > What bothers me about it isn’t that he didn’t keep his promise, it’s the attitude of indifference and defeat displayed by Obama’s OMB administrator, who said Here is the entire quote from [politifact](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/mar/02/john-boehner/spending-bill-wasnt-candidate-obamas-type-boehner-/): _Absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely._ Barack Obama Obama never said he would end earmarks. This is the latest manufactured story. Obama said he would reform earmarks and make the process more transparent. > [@](#): > > Several news organizations made even harsher claims. The New York Times , for example, reported that Obama would sign the bill, earmarks and all, “despite campaign promises to put an end to the practice.” > That’s incorrect. Obama did not promise to end earmarking, only to “reform” it, and eliminate “screwy” or wasteful earmarks. [Politifact.com](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/mar/02/john-boehner/spending-bill-wasnt-candidate-obamas-type-boehner-/) It is absurd that the Republicans rallied against a bill they helped write. It would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic. If earmarks were truly a principled stance, why didn’t any Republicans take out their earmarks or vote against the bill? The alleged pork in Obama’s stimulus bill is also fabricated. > [@](#): > > However, many Republicans have been focusing their critiques not on the big issues, but on blaming the Democrats for allegedly stuffing the legislation with that lip-smacking, crowd-agitating snack of heathens: pork! As we detail below, some prominent claims of porcine characteristics are either untrue or wildly exaggerated. [Factcheck.org](http://www.factcheck.org/politics/gop_stimulus_myths.html) ---
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2009, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-make-a-list-of-programs-that-dont-work-that-will-be-eliminated-under-obama/489318/65 "2009-03-15T03:14:39Z")
It really sucks that Obama is now breaking campaign promises made by John McCain. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2009, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-make-a-list-of-programs-that-dont-work-that-will-be-eliminated-under-obama/489318/66 "2009-03-15T03:26:23Z")
> [@Frostillicus](#): > > It really sucks that Obama is now breaking campaign promises made by John McCain. Well, dammit, somebody has to pay! ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2009, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-make-a-list-of-programs-that-dont-work-that-will-be-eliminated-under-obama/489318/67 "2009-03-15T12:53:22Z")
> [@welby](#): > > He never said **all** , he said that he’d go “line by line to make sure we aren’t spending money unwisley.” That’s from the first presidential debate. > > He’s wavered. The omnibus had a few, the budget a lot more than a few. In neither case did Obama identify or eliminate an earmark. So apparently - what? They’re all justified? Or he just didn’t do it? > > What bothers me about it isn’t that he didn’t keep his promise, it’s the attitude of indifference and defeat displayed by Obama’s OMB administrator, who said [“We want to just move on. Let’s get this bill done, get it into law and move forward.”](http://www.northjersey.com/news/nation/40522587.html) Of course, it was also written off as “last year’s business.” In other words, it’s just to big of a fight right now, so let’s blow this huge chunk of money, and we’ll do better next time? That may work flipping burgers, but when you’re talking about billions of dollars it shows a serious lack of sense, and a lack of commitment to the responsible, change making government Obama touted. Well, get the President line-item veto powers and then we can complain that Obama didn’t eliminate earmarks. Otherwise, the options are still 1. Veto it, send it back to Congress for either an override or a rewrite, and let government either shut down or pass emergency resolutions until the budget is done or 2. Sign it and try to get Congress to actually eliminate earmarks next fiscal year. ---
**Author:** ![welby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d78d45/32.png) [@welby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/welby)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2009, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-make-a-list-of-programs-that-dont-work-that-will-be-eliminated-under-obama/489318/68 "2009-03-15T14:55:06Z")
> [@Ocean\_Annie](#): > > Here is the entire quote from [politifact](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/mar/02/john-boehner/spending-bill-wasnt-candidate-obamas-type-boehner-/): > _Absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely._ Barack Obama > > Obama never said he would end earmarks. This is the latest manufactured story. Obama said he would reform earmarks and make the process more transparent." How’s that different from what I said? From your link: > [@](#): > > So the question is, is the omnibus spending bill the “type of legislation” that Obama campaigned against with respect to earmarks? That is, did it lack transparency, include earmarks based on a congressman’s seniority and ones that are wasteful? And was the amount more than the 1994 level of $7.8 billion a year? > > The answer to most of those questions is largely yes, said Keith Ashdown, investigator for Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington watchdog group. Ashdown said the earmarking process for the omnibus bill was not any more transparent than it was when Obama was campaigning. He said seven of the top 10 earmark recipients in the Senate are on the Appropriations Committee, suggesting that access was more important than merit when it came to deciding what projects would get earmarks. I don’t see how that conflicts with what I posted. ---
**Author:** ![Ocean\_Annie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8797f3/32.png) [@Ocean\_Annie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ocean_Annie)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2009, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-make-a-list-of-programs-that-dont-work-that-will-be-eliminated-under-obama/489318/69 "2009-03-15T23:23:12Z")
> [@welby](#): > > How’s that different from what I said? It’s not. I wanted to clarify the myth concerning the President’s position on earmarks by quoting him completely in context. McCain made earmarks an issue and politically Obama had to respond. Now, Republicans are feigning outrage over an issue that was never a particular concern for Obama or part of his platform. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2009, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-make-a-list-of-programs-that-dont-work-that-will-be-eliminated-under-obama/489318/70 "2009-03-16T22:19:54Z")
I hope someone’s mentioned the stupid abstinence only sex education. Kids are going to have sex, get over it and get them some protection [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-make-a-list-of-programs-that-dont-work-that-will-be-eliminated-under-obama/489318.md?page=3)