Obama's Changing Policies Good and Bad

[Michael Larson]

I'm starting this thread to chronicle President(elect) Obama's ever changing policy positions. Compared to his campaign rhetoric and what he actually devotes staff, time, and energy toward accomplishing, we are not getting what he promised.
Some will be disappointed and some will be encouraged. ML

Barack's Windfall Reversal
Here comes the 'change' part of his Administration.
One of Barack Obama's emerging political qualities is how casually he has been dumping the ballast of his campaign promises. The latest lousy policy to go over the side is a windfall profits tax on U.S. oil companies.

Throughout his run for President, Mr. Obama argued the industry deserved special taxation on its "excess" earnings. He planned to use the proceeds to fund an "emergency" round of $1,000 rebate checks for families. "It isn't right that oil companies are making record profits when ordinary Americans are going into debt trying to pay rising energy costs," he said. The sentiment featured in campaign ads and attacks on John McCain.

Mr. Obama never did offer a good or even particular reason for the oil majors to face this Carter-era inspiration -- apart from appeasing the populist furies. And he couldn't, either, given that multiple other industries profit more both in absolute terms and in returns on equity or sales. Nor could he account for the fact the tax confiscation would merely be passed along to the public in forgone investment in new exploration and production (and thus higher prices at the pump) or lower dividends.

Now with the election safely over, a transition spokesman explained this week that the drop in oil prices to $50 a barrel has made the windfall tax a dead letter. Left unexplained was why the oil companies suddenly decided to stop profiteering, or manipulating commodity prices, or whatever it was they were supposedly doing. But be thankful for small mercies. It is reassuring that Mr. Obama's calls to arbitrarily soak an unpopular business were merely rooted in political expediency, not some economic philosophy.
-------------------------------------------------

Oil Change
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Energy: In the face of plummeting oil prices, President-elect Obama abandons resurrecting the windfall profits tax on oil companies. It was a bad idea at any price. Now, will he also face reality and let them drill?

[rmaday]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Oil Change
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Energy: In the face of plummeting oil prices, President-elect Obama abandons resurrecting the windfall profits tax on oil companies. It was a bad idea at any price. Now, will he also face reality and let them drill?

I hope we don't get seduced by the sub $2 gas that we enjoy today. It's an opportunity to get a jump on the next round of $5 gas prices.

[klott]

They had to raise prices, to make their profit, before they lower it now, to prevent alternative fuels from being developed, oil will be so cheap, no one will will be able to compete with the energy output produced by oil per BTU. Been there!...Done that!

[Bob Elliott]

I doubt anyone feels oil will stay low.
As far as keeping track of campaign promises go ,that's all rhetoric anyway.

All politicos say what you want to hear,then do what they want later.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by relliott

I doubt anyone feels oil will stay low.
As far as keeping track of campaign promises go ,that's all rhetoric anyway.

All politicos say what you want to hear,then do what they want later.

Then how and on what did you make your decision on who was best to lead this country?

[klott]

Change, of course!

[kpierce]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Then how and on what did you make your decision on who was best to lead this country?

Simple. To ensure the death of the right wing wackos.

[kpierce]

Originally Posted by rstufflebeem

Why are you so hateful Kevin? Honestly!

How is that hateful? Because I disagree with the right fundamentalist's agenda? Aren't you just as hateful for opposing the left?

[David A. Andersen]

we are not getting what he promised.

And what else did you expect?

Why am I here?
I'll go back to HI now.

[Randy D. Stufflebeem]

Originally Posted by kpierce

How is that hateful? Because I disagree with the right fundamentalist's agenda? Aren't you just as hateful for opposing the left?

Kevin,
I am sorry Kevin I don't recall calling you a wacko or any of the other names you commonly use on this board. I did not base my question on one single post you made Kevin. By the way I don't oppose the left. If John F. Kennedy or someone like him ran, they may have got my nod. So the answer is no sir I am not hateful, but nice try! After bowing out of the discussions for a while and not arguing/debating it sure gave me a chance to see the people for what they are just by reading the posts they make. Its a pattern. One thing you do is spin just as you have done in this very post. I would have never recognized that if it were not for getting out of the conversation for a while and just observing. That is directed at your debating and not your Home Inspection knowledge that I read as well and am thankful. So spin on big guy! Its good entertainment!

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Then how and on what did you make your decision on who was best to lead this country?

It is hardly ever as easy as it was in this election because we had a good glimpse of the lack of leadership abilities from McCain when he fumbled in his campaign in two crucial decisions.

His first & greatest mistake was in choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate and his second was how he bungled the financial crisis, his poor decision making skills were glaring and obvious to anyone not drunk on the GOP KoolAid. Sometimes actions really do speak louder than words.

Imagine how bad the GOP loss would be if the Republicans were not running against a black man with unproven talents.

[kpierce]

Originally Posted by rstufflebeem

Kevin,
I am sorry Kevin I don't recall calling you a wacko or any of the other names you commonly use on this board. I did not base my question on one single post you made Kevin. By the way I don't oppose the left. If John F. Kennedy or someone like him ran, they may have got my nod. So the answer is no sir I am not hateful, but nice try! After bowing out of the discussions for a while and not arguing/debating it sure gave me a chance to see the people for what they are just by reading the posts they make. Its a pattern. One thing you do is spin just as you have done in this very post. I would have never recognized that if it were not for getting out of the conversation for a while and just observing. That is directed at your debating and not your Home Inspection knowledge that I read as well and am thankful. So spin on big guy! Its good entertainment!

Ah, good job stealthy grasshopper. The word wacko offends? You guys are very fragile. BTW, it's just a term used by Tom Leykis, calm down.

[kpierce]

Originally Posted by rstufflebeem

Its good entertainment!

Indeed.

[Michael Larson]

Obama: Economy to get worse before it improves

"The economy is going to get worse before it gets better," he said twice in the early moments of the interview, taped Saturday in Chicago.

The president-elect announced on Saturday he would call for the most massive spending on public works since the creation of the interstate highway system a half-century ago. In a word of caution to powerful lawmakers, he said the first priority would be "shovel-ready" projects - those that could create jobs rights away.


"The days of just pork coming out of Congress as a strategy those days are over," he added.

The president-elect sidestepped a question about the pace of a troop withdrawal from Iraq, saying he would direct U.S. generals to come up with a plan "for a responsible drawdown." He said in the campaign he wanted most U.S. troops withdrawn within 16 months, but did not say then, nor has he now, how large a deployment should be left behind.

[Michael Larson]

Liberals voice concerns about Obama

Liberals are growing increasingly nervous – and some just flat-out angry – that President-elect Barack Obama seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs and policy choices.

Obama has reversed pledges to immediately repeal tax cuts for the wealthy and take on Big Oil. He’s hedged his call for a quick drawdown in Iraq. And he’s stocking his White House with anything but stalwarts of the left.

Now some are shedding a reluctance to puncture the liberal euphoria at being rid of President George W. Bush to say, in effect, that the new boss looks like the old boss.

------------------

Ouch, that's gotta hurt!

Careful who you vote for in the future fellas.