More cover up from our Govt.

[Sstashmoo]

AP""The White House has abandoned its controversial method of counting jobs under President Barack Obama's economic stimulus, making it impossible to track the number of jobs saved or created with the $787 billion in recovery money.
Despite mounting a vigorous defense of its earlier count of more than 640,000 jobs credited to the stimulus, even after numerous errors were identified, the Obama administration now is making it easier to give the stimulus credit for hiring. It's no longer about counting a job as saved or created; now it's a matter of counting jobs funded by the stimulus.
That means that any stimulus money used to cover payroll will be included in the jobs credited to the program, including pay raises for existing employees and pay for people who never were in jeopardy of losing their positions.""


http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9543273

What happened to the "transparency"?

Looks like they are gearing up and covering up for next election.

It is amazing that almost a trillion in cash is having such little impact. Of course we set a new record for trade deficit in November, so it's no surprise. No production, no jobs.

[Mikeg]

What happened to the "transparency"?

Which also begs the question, what happened to candidate Obama's "war on cynicism" now that he is President?

"Don't let people tell you we can't solve our problems. Cynicism is our enemy. Don't let them convince you that it's too far gone, that Washington is too corrupt," Obama said to cheers. "Listen, there are problems in Washington but there are not problems we can't fix as citizens of the United States."
During the twilight rally in a Nashua park, Obama said the answer to health care — like many policies — is to reduce lobbyists' power.
"What's missing is not the plan, it's the sense of urgency and the willingness to take on special interests," Obama said. "It's not just enough to change political parties. For us to make those big changes, we're going to need all of you to be engaged." [Aug. 14, 2007]

Yeah, that's the ticket - tell the voters that the answer to health care is to REDUCE LOBBYISTS' POWER!

The other day, Nancy Pelosi took a shot at the President on the issue of transparency and the health care negotiations.

When asked about a letter from C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb urging congressional leaders to open up the negotiations — a move that would make good on Obama's campaign promise — Pelosi shot back: "There are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail." [source]

To which she should have added, "I didn't see him letting the C-SPAN cameras in the room while the White House and Senate were cutting that $80 billion deal with the drug lobbyists."

We're all cynics, now.

[rb336]

It is amazing that almost a trillion in cash is having such little impact. Of course we set a new record for trade deficit in November, so it's no surprise. No production, no jobs.

let's not be so disingenuous stash, around 1/5 of the $780 billion in funds has been awarded, and less than $40 billion of it has been recieved

[gazhekwe]

If it could have been done that fast, over bearly a year, it would have. DO please remember this problem has been growing since the before the Clinton years and took on a head of steam during the GWB years. As for transparency, it does seem that creative counting has been the norm in DC. How they count the unemployed, how they measure prosperity. I think this whole thing started when they began watching Wall Street instead of GNP to determine the nation's prosperity. And when was that? 1991, that's when. Think Alan Greenspan and his delusions of corporate self interest.

Here's an article from a similar period in the Clinton administration. Remember how he kept telling us we were suffering from anxiety so we didn't recognize the economic recovery that was so obvious from the GDP measurements? It's a long article but discusses the same exact situation we are in today. How will we know if we are recovering?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ecbig/gdp.htm

October 1995
If the GDP is Up, Why is America Down?

Why we need new measures of progress, why we do not have them, and how they would change the social and political landscape

by Clifford Cobb, Ted Halstead, and Jonathan Rowe

...This strange gap between what economists choose to measure and what Americans experience became the official conundrum of the campaign season. "PARADOX OF '94: GLOOMY VOTERS IN GOOD TIMES," The New York Times proclaimed on its front page. "BOOM FOR WHOM?" read the cover of Time magazine. Yet reporters never quite got to the basic question- namely, whether the official indicators are simply wrong, and are leading the nation in the wrong direction.
The problem goes much deeper than the "two-tiered" economy--prosperity at the top, decline in the middle and at the bottom--that received so much attention. It concerns the very definition of prosperity itself. In the apt language of the nineteenth-century writer John Ruskin, an economy produces "illth" as well as wealth; yet the conventional measures of well being lump the two together. Could it be that even the upper tier was--and still is--rising on the deck of a ship that is sinking slowly into a sea of illth, and that the nation's indicators of economic progress provide barely a clue to that fact?....

[Detroitej72]

Which also begs the question, what happened to candidate Obama's "war on cynicism" now that he is President?

He is being steered by the oligarchy that actually controls our government. Even if a person has the best intentions while campaigning, they soon find out once in office, they are puppets to the real powers.

[Mikeg]

Even if a person has the best intentions while campaigning, they soon find out once in office, they are puppets to the real powers.

The cynic in me says that he never had any such intentions to "reduce lobbyists' power" or provide greater transparency in how his administration would operate. It was nothing more than cheap campaign rhetoric, expertly delivered with the aid of his teleprompter. Unfortunately, the swing voters in the middle of the electorate fell for it, hook, line and sinker. I doubt that they will fall for any more of his post-partisan nonsense.

[maxx]

The cynic in me says that he never had any such intentions to "reduce lobbyists' power" or provide greater transparency in how his administration would operate. It was nothing more than cheap campaign rhetoric, expertly delivered with the aid of his teleprompter. Unfortunately, the swing voters in the middle of the electorate fell for it, hook, line and sinker. I doubt that they will fall for any more of his post-partisan nonsense.

Obama has done more good for the American people in his first year as president
than the shrub did in his eight years as mouthpiece for Cheney.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/Rachel-Maddow-Letterman

[Sstashmoo]

LMAO... Like the way he drew down troops in the Middle east as he promised... wait a minute. .. Or like the way he addressed our huge and growing trade deficit...ummmm....

The guy isn't doing anything for us, but pretending he is., Detroitej has it exactly right...

Now the bankers say "they are sorry".. Sorry??? Sorry they trashed our economy and nearly brought the world to it's knees with their junk securities? Squandered trillions only to be repaid by the US taxpayers? Sorry a plot was devised to steal trillions and trash the middle class, and executed with laser accuracy? They aren't "sorry"....... They are high fiving behind closed doors.. guaranteed.

[Mikeg]

Obama has done more good for the American people in his first year as president....

Either you are joking or you're grossly confusing rhetoric and activity with actual results. According to the link you provided:

• Well, he did, the bailout thing......
• Also did the giant stimulus.......
• if he gets healthcare signed....

The "bail out thing" was proposed by the Bush administration and it was passed by Congress while Obama was still a US Senator. Once he became President, Obama announced his Financial Stability Plan. We haven't head much about that plan lately, have we? I wonder why?

Actually, Pelosi and Reid "did the giant stimulus". Obama let them have free reign to structure its contents and he then pressured Congress to immediately pass it. He said that without the "giant stimulus", unemployment would climb to 9%. When he signed it he told us that it would keep the unemployment rate below 8%. Here's some charts showing the "giant stimulus" dismal results:
Attachment 4809

Attachment 4810


"If he gets healthcare signed" - he hasn't signed a healthcare bill yet and it still isn't clear what will or won't be contained in the final bill that Congress sends to him. How you can claim this as something he has already "done" is beyond me.

Obama couldn't even make a convincing argument in his two trips to Copenhagen to promote Chicago for the Olympics and get a binding agreement at the UN climate change conference.

If you're going to try and defend Obama's performance over the past year, why don't you focus on some of the things he promised in his "hope and change" campaign blather:

"I have seen people of differing views and opinions find common cause many times during my two decades in public life, and I have brought many together myself. I've walked arm-in-arm with community leaders on the South Side of Chicago and watched tensions fade as black, white, and Latino fought together for good jobs and good schools. I've sat across the table from law enforcement and civil rights advocates to reform a criminal justice system that sent thirteen innocent people to death row. And I've worked with friends in the other party to provide more children with health insurance and more working families with a tax break; to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and ensure that the American people know where their tax dollars are being spent; and to reduce the influence of lobbyists who have all too often set the agenda in Washington......

America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love.

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal..........."

Barack Obama, St. Paul, MN, June 03, 2008

[jiminnm]

let's not be so disingenuous stash, around 1/5 of the $780 billion in funds has been awarded, and less than $40 billion of it has been recieved

Then why was it so important to pass the package immediately, with little or no chance for anyone to review it or consider alternatives? It's been 11 months, what's the holdup? It wasn't supposed to be a way for states with bloated budgets to keep them bloated, but that's what it looks like it is being used for.

The national debt is nearing $12.4 trillion, up 17% in the last year. Maybe it would be best not to spend any more of the porkulus package.

[Detroitej72]

The cynic in me says that he never had any such intentions to "reduce lobbyists' power" or provide greater transparency in how his administration would operate.

Translation: I pretend to be impartial, and hide my allegiance to the almighty republican party.

It was nothing more than cheap campaign rhetoric, expertly delivered with the aid of his TelePrompTer. Unfortunately, the swing voters in the middle of the electorate fell for it, hook, line and sinker.

Translation: I show my true colors, and swore allegiance to the republican party of America.

Don't be ashamed, wear your allegiance proudly!

[Mikeg]

Detroitej72,

Is it asking too much of you to stay on-topic instead of getting personal?

This kind of kiddie crap gets old real fast.

[Detroitej72]

Detroitej72,

Is it asking too much of you to stay on-topic instead of getting personal?

This kind of kiddie crap gets old real fast.

You tell me, all I ever read from you is typical[[albeit, interesting) republican rhetoric. I answered your conclusions, in a reasoned, thoughtful way.

Give me some info, from a non-partisan source, and I'll read and come to my own conclusions.

[Mikeg]

I answered your conclusions, in a reasoned, thoughtful way.

There were no answers in your post #11.

If you don't like to read what I have to say, put me on your "ignore list".

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "let's not be so disingenuous stash, around 1/5 of the $780 billion in funds has been awarded, and less than $40 billion of it has been recieved"

The simple announcement of such an injection of government sourced cash in to the economy should have had an effect. It has had none. Flat-lining...

I have to ask, what are they hoping to stimulate? Our manufaturing sector is being stripped to the bone. What is left, has one foot out the door. What area of our economy is going to prosper and create jobs? Jobs that can't be outsourced? They might as well take it up in a plane and throw it out the window, will have about as much effect.

I just think every day we continue on this path puts us one day closer to an all out revolt in this country. People are out marching in the streets that have never did anything like that before. More and more people are getting involved, trying to effect some sort of change. Couple that with increasing unemployment - more folks able to join them. Just a matter of time. These marches and demonstrations are going to get bigger and more violent. Sadly fewof those that participate now could intelligently explain why they are there, they just know something is wrong, another caustic element- ignorance.

[rb336]

The simple announcement of such an injection of government sourced cash in to the economy should have had an effect. It has had none. Flat-lining...

bullshit. the problem is, you can't imagine where things would be without having it. the bigger problem is that we don't make things here anymore, thanks to the republicans [[including clinton) encouraging manufacturers to send our jobs overseas. there are precious few value-added industries left here -- I would bet well over 90% of the new industries are value-subtractive - they take money out of the system and do nothing to create value

[Retroit]

Mikeg, I really appreciate your posts. You are one of very few people on this forum that actually takes the time to substantiate your arguments with verified sources. You are in a league well above us and those who argue with you without providing credible counter-arguments are only displaying their foolishness.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "bullshit. the problem is, you can't imagine where things would be without having it."

You're wrong. Press releases have an enormous effect normally on things like stock prices, consumer confidence, etc. Although, I think you missed the rest of my post that actually parallels your opinion.

[MCP-001]

More "transparency" from Pres B.O.?

Oh, please!!!

This is an anathema to him and his underlings!

Health care? Remember how that was supposed to go?

The bailout? Yeah right!

While were talking about broken "promises", how about these?

Detroitej72 is the closest to the mark regarding how Washington REALLY operates.

[maxx]

Mikeg:Obama couldn't even make a convincing argument in his two trips to Copenhagen to promote Chicago for the Olympics and get a binding agreement at the UN climate change conference.

Maxx: From what I heard, Chicago was only luke-warm about the Olympics.

Mikeg: If you're going to try and defend Obama's performance over the past year, why don't you focus on some of the things he promised in his "hope and change" campaign blather:

Maxx: Being specific in his campaign speeches was his big mistake. His predecessors have mostly talked in generalities.

[maxx]

jiminn: Then why was it so important to pass the package immediately, with little or no chance for anyone to review it or consider alternatives? It's been 11 months, what's the holdup?

maxx: I think there has been concern about inflation. Also the money has to work its way through the legislature.

[Mikeg]

jiminn: Then why was it so important to pass the package immediately, with little or no chance for anyone to review it or consider alternatives? It's been 11 months, what's the holdup?

maxx: I think there has been concern about inflation. Also the money has to work its way through the legislature.

maxx.,

You are missing jiminnm's point. Obama said that the stimulus bill had to be passed immediately so that spending could begin ASAP and keep unemployment from rising above 9%. As a result, Congress' roll call votes on the 1,073 page, $790 billion stimulus bill

came less than 24 hours after House-Senate conferees had agreed to their deal. Democrats rushed the bill to the floor before Members could even read it, much less have time to broadcast the details so the public could offer its verdict.

So much for Democratic promises of a new era of transparency. Only this Tuesday the House unanimously approved a resolution promising 48-hour public notice before holding a roll call. Even better, the bill could have been posted on the Internet, as candidate Barack Obama suggested during the campaign. Let voters see what they're getting for all this money. Not a chance.

[source: Wall Street Journal, Feb. 15, 2009]

Now take a look at the two charts that I posted above. What difference would there have been in the stimulus spending rate - or the unemployment rate - if Congress had held off on their final vote for four or five days so that all Members [[and the public) could have a chance to read and understand what was in the bill prior to voting? The answer is that the charts would look exactly the same. So why was Obama so insistent on an immediate vote and why did Pelosi and Reid schedule the final votes within 24 hours after receiving the conference report? I think they knew that if the public had a chance to see all of the non-stimulus "pork" that was included in that bill, the chances of its passage would be seriously diminished.

Transparency is nothing more than a campaign gimmick.

[Mikeg]

Thanks, Retroit!

Before I state an opinion, I try to make sure it can be supported by some facts. Once I have found them, it isn't too much more work to provide a source link or a chart in my post.

If somebody wants to question the accuracy of my sourced data, they should provide some countering data of their own instead of taking the lazy way out and just deriding it as a "partisan source" or going off-topic. When they resort to that, I figure that I have "struck a nerve" and they must be unable to find any data on which to base a counter argument.

[mjs]

Good posts Mikeg.

Unfortunately, Obama picked up the cry the sky is falling and race it through tactic from Bush. Even more unfortunate, it seems it sometimes works because too many in congress like it. When its raced through, there's two things they know for certain: 1) They know what pork is in it for them, and 2) they can vote for it and still say they were against what was in it.

Its why whenever either party does their bum rush, I let a whole slueth of them know that if they vote yes and then later state they didn't know what was in it, I'm voting against them regardless of my stance on the issue. Yes, a crucially critical part of their job is to vote no if the public hasn't had time to weigh in on it.

As for these stimulus packages, I'll be taking the day off work on election day so I can hand out lists of candidates that voted for that pork-laden, debt-avalanching, tail-chasing, smoldering-turd they laughingly called legislation.

[Mikeg]

President Obama pushes for a deal on health bill

More health care reform opacity from the Obama White House.

Despite his campaign pledges to a) reduce lobbyists involvement and power in health care reform and b) televise the health care reform negotiations and debates, President Obama and his staff met all day yesterday behind closed doors with union lobbyists who are seeking special exemptions from certain provisions of the health care reform conference bill. House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid joined the fun, all the while subverting the normal conference committee process typically used to resolve the differences between the House and Senate versions of bills.

Not to worry, though. According to Maxx, "Being specific in his campaign speeches was his big mistake."

UPDATE - Breaking News Alert!

Tentative tax deal marks health care breakthrough

WASHINGTON – In a major breakthrough, union leaders bowed Thursday to White House demands for a new tax on high-cost insurance plans as part of landmark health care legislation taking final shape in intensive negotiations...........

In a significant victory for unions, the 40 percent excise tax would not apply to policies covering workers in collective bargaining agreements, state and local workers and members of voluntary employee benefit associations through Dec. 31, 2017.
Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., and others said the tax would apply to fewer plans than was the case in the Senate-passed bill and would exclude the value of dental and vision coverage. They added it would provide an exemption for residents of states where the cost of health care is particularly high, as well as for employees of high-risk professions.

I like how the lead states that "union leaders bowed to White House demands" and only much later do we learn that the union lobbyists actually scored "a significant victory".