Obama's Appointments

[AnorexicPuppy]

After winning a historic election, in the face of the hatred that is still rife within america, Obama must choose those who will help him survive his first term in office. And so, for his chief of staff, he picks an efficient, and loyal... asshole. Rahm Emmanuel? are you kidding me! My dad works at the Chicago Trib. I saw Mr. Emmanuel there... yelling "THAT'S FUCKIN' BULL-SHIT!" when I, a young, tender child of 7 was standing but 5 feet away from him. Is Obama making the right choices? Who would you recommend?

[Achilles2]

When picking cabinet members, personality is not and should not be a factor. What matters is whether or not the pick can get the job done, and Emmanuel will get the job done.

So far, I think Obama's picks are good. All except for Hillary Clinton. She's a leader, not a follower. I just know there'll be strife between her, Vice President Biden, and President Obama.

[Drakim]

I find it funny how people hold up politicians to standards that they would never dream of upholding themselves. I could shout "THAT'S BULLSHIT" into my cell phone on the bus, and nobody would care or even notice. But man, if a politician says it, it's suddenly so horrible, oh, and ever so harmful for the children. (despite that they probably hear their dad saying every profanity in the book while watching sports)

[aninjaman]

At 11/28/08 06:44 PM, Drakim wrote: I find it funny how people hold up politicians to standards that they would never dream of upholding themselves.

Well of course people want their politicians to be better then they are.
You know a politician is not doing a good job when you can say "I could do a better job then that idiot."

[Masterzakk]

At 11/28/08 06:44 PM, Drakim wrote: I find it funny how people hold up politicians to standards that they would never dream of upholding themselves. I could shout "THAT'S BULLSHIT" into my cell phone on the bus, and nobody would care or even notice. But man, if a politician says it, it's suddenly so horrible, oh, and ever so harmful for the children. (despite that they probably hear their dad saying every profanity in the book while watching sports)

Oh of course man however I had to live up to some standards hell I can't say the word hell whenver I was playing sonic adventure too. They don't even care however that I say "Hey mom I'm playing GTA 3 I'm shooting mafia members in the skulls!!". Even whenever I talk about genocide they don't care.

[Mast3rMind]

The one thing I don't get is the people complaining about it being more of the same. When Obama so far plans on keeping Gates for a year and has someone from Carter's cabinet. But really, none of that matters though. Since it actually shows that he's picking people with experience. It's better to surround himself with people like that while he barks orders. The one thing like many other people have said is that Hillary is a leader not a follower so unless she's actually willing to play ball for real remains to be seen. But so far, these picks have been good. Although we'll see how it comes together when he's office.

[aninjaman]

At 11/28/08 10:46 PM, Mast3rMind wrote: The one thing like many other people have said is that Hillary is a leader not a follower so unless she's actually willing to play ball for real remains to be seen.

I think Hillary acting as a leader would be good.
If Obama focuses his energy on the economy Hillary could focus her energy as the Secretary of State on foreign policy.
It would be like a dual presidency.

[Hamalo]

I actually find Obama's choices for staff great.

Think about it, Hillary knows government, because she was trying to run for it too, which means she could be really helpful in office. Think of McCain, he was also running for president, so he would also know whats up and could be helpful in office.

Obama is picking his staff like President Lincoln did. Which I personally think is a great way to do it.

[Zeistro]

It doesn't matter who Obama picks. He's still going to be a failure as President.

[AnorexicPuppy]

At 11/29/08 04:10 PM, Zeistro wrote: It doesn't matter who Obama picks. He's still going to be a failure as President.

Because he forgot to run with the republican party after being a governor from Txas, and his dad wasn't a president. Because those things are the keys to success.

[aninjaman]

At 11/29/08 04:10 PM, Zeistro wrote: It doesn't matter who Obama picks. He's still going to be a failure as President.

No one should hope the president is going to be a failure.

[Zeistro]

At 11/29/08 04:18 PM, AnorexicPuppy wrote: Because he forgot to run with the republican party after being a governor from Txas, and his dad wasn't a president. Because those things are the keys to success.

Yes, way to put words in my mouth. Success isn't measured by what political party you're in.

At 11/29/08 04:28 PM, aninjaman wrote: No one should hope the president is going to be a failure.

I don't hope for anything. I really do hope Obama is a great President. America deserves to have the best leadership regardless of who it is, but I'm certain Obama isn't going to be that great leader. He has given no indication otherwise besides wooing simple-minded fools with fanciful language.

[Tancrisism]

At 11/29/08 06:19 PM, Zeistro wrote:

He has given no indication otherwise besides wooing simple-minded fools with fanciful language.

Unless you actually listen to the fanciful language and assume that some of it at least must be true (like his tax ideas).

[Zeistro]

At 11/29/08 06:56 PM, Tancrisism wrote: Unless you actually listen to the fanciful language and assume that some of it at least must be true (like his tax ideas).

If living life (watching Penn and Teller) has taught me anything it's that you gotta take everything you hear with grain of salt. There isn't s a single politicians I'd trust with my car keys, let alone my entire national security, however, some are more trustworthy but fall short.

I've read financial publications and crunched some of the numbers myself about Obama's tax plan. Guess what? From my estimate it isn't going to be very successful. I could be wrong, but right now I'm increasingly cynical of President Obama.

[SlimeManMan]

At 11/28/08 04:52 PM, Achilles2 wrote: When picking cabinet members, personality is not and should not be a factor. What matters is whether or not the pick can get the job done, and Emmanuel will get the job done.

So far, I think Obama's picks are good. All except for Hillary Clinton. She's a leader, not a follower. I just know there'll be strife between her, Vice President Biden, and President Obama.

Three's Company, as they say.
Or the Presidential version of the Odd couple.
Or something.

[aninjaman]

At 11/29/08 07:12 PM, Zeistro wrote: I've read financial publications and crunched some of the numbers myself about Obama's tax plan. Guess what? From my estimate it isn't going to be very successful. I could be wrong, but right now I'm increasingly cynical of President Obama.

Define successful tax plan. Your post really didn't really provide anything to back up your point.

[Alphabit]

Obama doesn't have many friends in the white house, so you know that he'll be picking people based purely on their skills. When bush came to office, he basically appointed all his friends to high positions.

[D2Kvirus]

At 11/28/08 07:42 PM, aninjaman wrote:
Well of course people want their politicians to be better then they are.

No wonder people are so depressed. Imagine the poor bastards that had John Precott as their MP for all these years!

Obama's surrounding himself with people who know what they're doing - does he want to feel left out for the next four years or something?

Besides, if his VP is a guy best known for plagiarising Neil Kinnock's speeches, there's only two ways the rest of his cabinet could go: the same level, or better by the default of Dan Quayle being busy that weekend.

[Memorize]

At 11/30/08 12:42 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

Obama's surrounding himself with people who know what they're doing - does he want to feel left out for the next four years or something?

He's almost completely surrounded himself with either "dumb" (not stupid mind you) people or others who are loyal to themselves first.

Hillary Clinton being an example of being loyal to herself. For one, she's going to be in charge of secretary of state. Not only will she have differeing views of foreign policy than Obama, she probly wouldn't care too much if Obama took the fall for anything if it meant she could run for office to become president.

His treasury secretary, although it did allow the DOW to rise by 450 or so points as a result of having an idea of how the markets are going to be handled (instead of our past 'uncertainty'), but he was also one of the guys heading the charge in bailing out all of these private and government corporations.

He also has the guy who pushed to get Marc Rich pardon'd.

Despite the "change from Washington" mantra, he has so far gotten people who have more experience in Washington than even Bush's staff.

And since Obama agrees with Bush on bigger government, Corportism, borderline socialism, and outrageous government spending and deficits, things aren't going to change very soon.

[Zeistro]

At 11/29/08 10:43 PM, aninjaman wrote: Define successful tax plan. Your post really didn't really provide anything to back up your point.

The fact his tax plan is arbitrary and not well thought out. People with billions of dollars are just going to perform tax sheltering when they imposed higher rates. So unless Obama tries to simplify the tax code to eliminate these loopholes they're not going to get much more money.

Untop of that, the "rich" who make 250k a year are usually doctors, engineers, lawyers and small business owners who work in excess of 70 hours a week. I wonder how motivated they're going to be when they know they'll be paying an increased rate in taxes?

I'm not against taxing the rich an extra percentile or three, but 250k is not rich. If anything, it's upper middleclass.

[Al6200]

At 12/2/08 07:58 PM, Zeistro wrote:

Untop of that, the "rich" who make 250k a year are usually doctors, engineers, lawyers and small business owners who work in excess of 70 hours a week. I wonder how motivated they're going to be when they know they'll be paying an increased rate in taxes?

Honestly you have to be a mid to high level manager to make 250k a year (doctors, investment bankers, and certain types of lawyers excluded). A starting engineering only makes around 60k a year, and if one doesn't move into management it usually plateaus at about 100k.

I'm not against taxing the rich an extra percentile or three, but 250k is not rich. If anything, it's upper middleclass.

I think it really depends on your region. In the midwest a decent house might cost around 100k. 200k for a really nice house. In contrast, a house in the mid-atlantic region will go anywhere from 300-500k. So in Kansas, 50k a year is more than enough to live off of. LA on the other hand...

The interesting think to me is that the urban areas which voted for Obama with high costs of living will get hit much harder by his tax plan then the rural areas where 250k is a fortune.

[SkunkyFluffy]

At 12/2/08 07:58 PM, Zeistro wrote: The fact his tax plan is arbitrary and not well thought out. People with billions of dollars are just going to perform tax sheltering when they imposed higher rates.

And many of the very richest Americans actually have surprisingly low incomes. There was talk of instituting higher sales taxes on luxury goods as a more fair way to "tax the rich."

I'm not against taxing the rich an extra percentile or three, but 250k is not rich. If anything, it's upper middleclass.

The rich already pay a much higher percentile, and it's really painful to jump a tax bracket and realize that at the end of the day you don't make that much more than you did before. I made 14k last year; I will make 28k this year. On paper, that is. I jumped three percent with that shift, and I wind up only taking home a few thousand extra dollars a year. I can only imagine how it would feel to jump from, say, 80k to 110k and realize I'm paying out an extra three percent of that new salary - it would be like not getting a raise at all, in a way. Yes your salary has gone up 30k, but has your standard of living increased? Not really.

That's the problem with arbitrary numbers like 250 - if I make 248, and pay x% of taxes, then get a raise to 260 and pay x+5% of taxes, I would be better off refusing the raise. Try that math with 12 and 17 percent (although it's actually much higher at those levels). At $248 you're making $218,240 after a 12% tax. At $260 you're only making $215,800 after tax. So according to your salary you are now wealthier, but your take-home pay is actually LESS.

And yeah, 250k is only rich if you live in an area with really low cost-of-living. Here in the DC area a household making that is not even UPPER middle class. A single person making that might be considered upper middle, but not a family. I won't mention our household income (it's a lot less than 250), but if we moved down to Richmond we'd be mid-to-upper middle class; here we are just barely scraping above the divide between middle and lower.

[n64kid]

At 12/3/08 12:23 AM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

That's the problem with arbitrary numbers like 250 - if I make 248, and pay x% of taxes, then get a raise to 260 and pay x+5% of taxes, I would be better off refusing the raise. Try that math with 12 and 17 percent (although it's actually much higher at those levels). At $248 you're making $218,240 after a 12% tax. At $260 you're only making $215,800 after tax. So according to your salary you are now wealthier, but your take-home pay is actually LESS.

Learn what a progressive tax system is. Here's the real math using your numbers.

Say marginal tax from 0-250,000 is 12%
and 250,000+ is 17%

Making 248,000, you Net 218,240 after taxes
Making 260,000, you Net 228,300 if I did my math right.

But the point is that you still pay more for each dollar you earn after a certain amount. Marginal tax rates already put the burden on the rich, so why increase that overwhelming burden further? Where would the end be?

As a side note, it may surprise some of you that so far I love all of Obama's appointments, including Hilldawg.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 12/3/08 03:18 AM, n64kid wrote: As a side note, it may surprise some of you that so far I love all of Obama's appointments, including Hilldawg.

Who are you and what have you done with the real n64kid?

On a more serious note, looking at Obama's appointments so far have to say I think he's done the logical thing. Whilst his mantra may have been change, he is still providing change in that he's going back to lots of people from Clinton's administration, which most people tend to view favourably.

Only thing I think he's shot himself in the foot with is Hilary. He needs to watch that very carefully and have a very well thought out plan in order for it to be successful otherwise Mrs Clinton will just jump at the first chance to try and secure the Democratic nomination at the next election.

[JackPhantasm]

Bill Richardson just got commerce secretary I do believe.

He was one of the candidates I liked in the debates as well.

[XaosLegend]

The dissapointment is coming in full with his appointments.

They basically confirm what I told people all along about Obama: He's not going to change much of anything. His appointments say he's a Bush 1 on militancy, and a clinton on demostic policy which means he'll still be heavily engaging in "nation building" (IE antidemocratic dictator/junta supporting), while perhaps not being as tactically stupid as Bush 2, and if he had it to do over again he'd invent NAFTA himself, and in that vein will do next to nothing to recede it's effect.

As the psychopath Oliver North said, "Personnel is policy." and all the explaining away of Obama's infuriating apointments is just elitist cowing of the herd.

[JackPhantasm]

Who would you have chosen instead?

[Memorize]

At 12/4/08 04:05 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Who would you have chosen instead?

He could've chosen anyone else, to be honest.

Instead we have a treasury secretary who was one of the driving forces in bailing out these corporations.

A secretary of state who literally has done nothing in that regard other than saying "hi" who also has her own personal agenda, loyal first to herself.

We have a friggin' official of Arizona in charge of terrorist security, when the only form of "terrorism" to deal with was BORDER secrurity.

It could've helped if he didn't choose so many people who were around and helped CAUSE the housing bubble from the 90's.

He also has the same nation building, expanding the military to more countries, keeping those soldiers in those countries, officials on his team as well.

Change we can believe in.

[JackPhantasm]

I see.

Well it's better than the neocons.

Tbh I think we should just have a revolution.

[SkunkyFluffy]

At 12/3/08 03:18 AM, n64kid wrote: Learn what a progressive tax system is. Here's the real math using your numbers.

I know how the progressive tax system works. What is being proposed here is an arbitrary cutoff for what makes someone "wealthy" and only increasing taxes for people beyond that point, which completely defeats the purpose of the progressive tax schedule.

Personally I think it's incredibly unfair to make someone pay a higher percentage as they make more money. I'm a big fan of the idea of a flat tax, where everyone pays the same percentage. People who make more money are still going to pay more taxes.