By Nitya

Jan 12, 2009 8:40am

The Note, 1/12/09: Skin Deeper — Salesman-in-Chief Tests Sway

By RICK KLEIN “Everybody’s going to have to have some skin in the game,” President-elect Barack Obama told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on Sunday’s “This Week.”  Well, Mr. President-elect — you didn’t think that wouldn’t apply to you, too, did you? As he presses his case for a stimulus package, plus the other half of the bank bailout fund — and as his would-be Cabinet fans out for confirmation week on the Hill — Obama himself has made this about more than just some legislative wins. He’s asking for patience. He’s asking for buy-in from lawmakers. He may yet get those things, along with the TARP money and the massive stimulus bill that could be the signature initiative of his whole term (who will be happiest if that is the case?). But by making the stimulus his first push, by pushing with the urgency that he is, and by pressing for it to pass in a big vote, Obama is seeking to turn this debate into a down payment on his future power in Washington. With eight days left before he gets the big job for real, Obama has a different one: Salesman-in-chief, with two products he needs to move fast. “Mr. Obama has sought to strike a balance: emphasizing the depth of the problem, to create a sense of political urgency for Congress to act quickly, while not being so pessimistic that he could further destabilize the jittery financial markets or deplete the sense of energy and hope accompanying his election,” Adam Nagourney and Jim Rutenberg write in The New York Times. Think Lincoln plus FDR plus YouTube: “Mr. Obama’s aides said that for the next three weeks, he would pack his schedule with interviews, speeches, news conferences and limited travel to try to rally public support behind the effort. The overall political goal, aides said, was to ensure that Mr. Obama’s economic recovery program was approved quickly by a substantial bipartisan vote in Congress, while at the same time playing down public hopes about how quickly it might work,”  Nagourney and Rutenberg write. Obama is pressing for the stimulus — and even before we get there, action on TARP. But first — President Bush holds his last White House press conference at 9:15 am ET Monday — his first since July (!), per ABC’s Ann Compton. From Press Secretary Dana Perino: “The President will make a brief opening statement, commenting on the important role the White House press corps has in covering presidents and the White House, and then will take questions. The President is looking forward to discussing the important events of the last eight years as well as issues in the news today.” Among those topics: The Bush administration could ask for the second half of the $700 billion as soon as Monday — and Congress could move to block that (a vote that, itself, could be vetoed, and subject to a congressional override — get your procedural handbooks ready). “This is the week when the rubber meets the road,” ABC’s Jake Tapper reported on “Good Morning America” Monday. Just like a good salesman: Tapper notices Obama’s job-creation predictions for the stimulus package growing — from 2.5 million last month to 4 million by this past weekend. “It seems like every time Mr. Obama talks about his stimulus proposal, he is increasingly optimistic about how many jobs it will create,” Tapper said. On TARP: “Senate Democratic leaders said a vote could come as early as this week on providing a second $350 billion for the financial industry, after assurances Sunday by President-elect Barack Obama and one of his top economic advisers that the money would be better monitored and spent,” the AP’s Andrew Taylor and Philip Elliott report. “The Bush administration and the incoming Obama team have undertaken a tag-team effort to obtain the money from reluctant lawmakers, to have it waiting for Obama when he’s sworn in Jan. 20.”  “With much of the public frustrated with the spending of the first $350 billion, congressional officials say they expect the House to pass a resolution to block spending the rest of the funds. But Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) said Senate Democrats could vote down the measure if Obama’s team provides enough assurances that they will spend the money differently than the Bush administration did,” Perry Bacon Jr. writes in The Washington Post.  “The request is certain to generate angry debate on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers are reeling from last week’s projection of a $1.2 trillion budget deficit and will also soon be asked to vote on Mr. Obama’s $800 billion recovery package,” David M. Herszenhorn writes in The New York Times. “It remains unclear if there is a need to rush to release the money, or if the Obama transition team is just seeking to avoid what could become a major headache. The House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, said on the CBS program ‘Face the Nation’ on Sunday that he would oppose disbursing the money and said there was no justification for doing so now.”  The brand is the thing: “Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, said Summers assured senators yesterday that the administration will insist on tougher ‘accountability standards,’ ” per Bloomberg’s Ryan J. Donmoyer.  Said Dodd: “The Obama administration wants to re-brand this process.” Deborah Solomon and Greg Hitt, in The Wall Street Journal: “Members of Mr. Obama’s team, including Treasury Secretary-nominee Timothy Geithner, are working to satisfy lawmakers’ concerns by proposing using the funds for new purposes, such as preventing foreclosures, and imposing tougher conditions on recipients, according to people familiar with the negotiations.”  Ready for warfare — on a different front: “President-elect Barack Obama and congressional leaders plan to move soon to block the estate tax from disappearing in 2010, suggesting the levy might outlive the ‘Death Tax Repeal’ movement that has tried mightily to kill it,” Jonathan Weisman reports in The Wall Street Journal. “The Democratic stance on the estate tax contrasts with Mr. Obama’s reluctance to press forward with his campaign pledge to raise income-tax rates on top earners, which he worries could have an adverse economic impact during a recession.”  “The Senate Finance Committee will move within weeks on legislation to reverse that law, and Mr. Obama is expected to detail his estate-tax preservation proposal in his budget next month, congressional tax writers said,” Weisman writes. Selling through sacrifice: Obama bought into Stephanopoulos’ description of a “grand bargain,” where everybody give a little. “Right now, I’m focused on a pretty heavy lift, which is making sure we get that reinvestment and recovery package in place,” he said on “This Week.” But what you described is exactly what we’re going to have to do. What we have to do is to take a look at our structural deficit, how are we paying for government? What are we getting for it? And how do we make the system more efficient?”  “Everybody’s going to have to give. Everybody’s going to have to have some skin in the game,” Obama said. Buying patience? “President-elect Barack Obama said yesterday that the $1 trillion-plus deficit and ailing economy would force him to move slowly and scale back on his priorities in the short term, and that getting the country back in strong financial shape will require sacrifices from all Americans,” Lisa Wangsness writes in The Boston Globe. “Obama vowed to eventually get the deficit under control and make significant adjustments to expensive entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, which will cost trillions as the baby boomer generations retire, though he did not offer any specific proposals.”  Buying support? “The Obama team told about 35 Senate Democrats gathered at Sunday’s meeting that it would grow the size of an energy-tax incentive package and modify proposed tax credits for individuals and for businesses that hire new employees, according to meeting attendees,” Politico’s Manu Raju reports.  How will the left feel about these tidbits? Another 100 days (at least) of Guantanamo; no real desire to probe Bush administration policies on torture and detention; and thanks to Vice President Dick Cheney (though a no-thanks on water-boarding) for all the advice. (Bill Kristol: On Iran, “he’ll probably be calling Dick Cheney for advice.”) “His administration will face competing demands: pressure from liberals who want wide-ranging criminal investigations, and the need to establish trust among the country’s intelligence agencies,” David Johnston and Charlie Savage write in The New York Times. “At the Central Intelligence Agency, in particular, many officers flatly oppose any further review and may protest the prospect of a broad inquiry into their past conduct.”  This one’s for the left: “The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, who became the Episcopal Church’s first openly gay bishop in 2003 and last year entered into a civil union with his gay partner, will deliver the invocation for Sunday’s kickoff inaugural event on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, with President-elect Obama in attendance. The event is free and open to the public,” Politico’s Mike Allen reports. “An Obama source: ‘Robinson was in the plans before the complaints about Rick Warren. Many skeptics will read this as a direct reaction to the Warren criticism — but it’s just not so.’ “  He wants ideas? Paul Krugman takes the bait: “Money not squandered on ineffective tax cuts could be used to provide further relief to Americans in distress — enhanced unemployment benefits, expanded Medicaid and more,” he writes in his New York Times column.  “Mainly, though, Mr. Obama needs to make his plan bigger. . . . The way to do more is to stop talking about jump-starts and look more broadly at the possibilities for government investment.”  This will come down to a test of personal leadership — and Obama saw his own limits last week. Don’t forget who’s in charge: “Despite complaints from some Democrats that there’s not
enough stimulus and from Republicans that there’s too much, a good bet is that six weeks from now the president will have signed a stimulus package very similar to what he proposes,” Bloomberg’s Al Hunt writes in his column.  But Obama goes in wounded by his roughest transition week yet: “Obama justifiably figured that Burris was not worth a knockdown fight when he has so many bigger battles ahead of him,” David Broder writes in his Sunday Washington Post column. “But the lesson that other politicians have drawn is that Obama may not always be able to count on his congressional allies and they may not be able to count on him. That is not the way he wanted to begin.” And don’t forget who thinks (knows?) they’re in charge: “The question is whether last week’s ruffled feathers have been smoothed and whether there are more tensions ahead,” the Los Angeles Times’ Christi Parsons and Peter Nicholas report. “Some clashes could be the inevitable stumbles of a new relationship. Others may reflect contending visions of how to do business, involving basic differences between the Obama viewpoint and what the president-elect refers to as the Washington way.”  (Plus, don’t miss more committee chairs — Energy’s Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., and EPW’s Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. — offering gentle reminders that it’s OK to give a committee chairman a head’s up on a big pick.) “Before the game even begins, he sees what he will be up against, and there is nothing new or different about that,” Mike Lupica writes in the New York Daily News. “You don’t have to agree with him on everything to agree that this is a practical man, getting the best advice from people who actually have the best interests of the country at heart. Give him a chance. You fight alongside this guy, not against him.” Thinking big: “He brings to the task not just a new team and a new agenda but the makings of a new kind of political machine,” New York Magazine’s John Heilemann writes — calling the president-elect a “party of one.” “The questions now are whether he can turn his rhetoric about transcending polarities into an effective governing strategy; whether he can forge a cohesive legislative coalition to advance his aims; and, if he can and does, whether the Democratic Party will still look remotely like itself — or more like, well, him.” Obama’s Monday: He has his first meeting with a foreign leader since winning the election, sitting down with Mexican President Felipe Calderon at the Mexican Cultural Institute in Washington, at 12:30 pm ET. Reuters’ Catherine Bremer: “Battling with spiraling drug murders and an economic crisis, Mexico’s Felipe Calderon will urge U.S. President-elect Barack Obama on Monday to support his drug war and stick to the NAFTA trade deal.” In another presidential tradition: “The Canadian government announced Saturday, and the Obama transition team office confirmed, that Obama accepted the invitation of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to head up North for his first international excursion,” ABC’s Jake Tapper reports. The latest on the Illinois Senate seat: “Lawyers for Roland Burris will be in Washington Monday to meet with Senate attorneys and press their case for seating Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s (D) controversial appointee,” The Hill’s J. Taylor Rushing reports. “A senior Senate Democratic aide said the various legal teams will review documents that Burris has collected in recent days, which he believes meets an 1884 Senate rule requiring all senators to have certificates signed by their states’ governors and secretaries of state.”  The Chicago Tribune’s Rick Pearson: “Senate Democratic leaders and their staff in Washington are reviewing newly submitted paperwork on behalf of Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s Senate appointee, Roland Burris, and Sen. Dick Durbin said a resolution to the controversy could come before Illinois lawmakers finish Blagojevich’s impeachment trial.”  Confirmation week: “Recent history has shown that the confirmation process is an imperfect science in which even the most-qualified, most-well-known, most-vetted nominee can get tripped up and fail — sometimes even before a hearing’s opening gavel strikes,” McClatchy’s William Douglas and David Lightman write. “Perhaps the most dramatic hearing will occur on Jan. 15 when senators quiz Eric Holder on his nomination to be attorney general.”  Think Tuesday’s hearings will draw a camera or two? “Hillary Clinton, ever the preparation junkie, is cramming for Tuesday’s confirmation hearing — intent on downplaying old disagreements with Barack Obama and parrying questions about her husband’s overseas entanglements, aides say,” Glenn Thrush and Amie Parnes report for Politico. “Barring a bombshell revelation, all sides expect Clinton to be speedily confirmed as secretary of state. But her rendezvous with the Foreign Relations Committee at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday still offers its share of potential land mines.”  Talking points for retrospectives (and for White House pushback): “President Bush has presided over the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades, according to an analysis of key data, and economists across the ideological spectrum increasingly view his two terms as a time of little progress on the nation’s thorniest fiscal challenges,” Neil Irwin and Dan Eggen report in The Washington Post.  “The number of jobs in the nation increased by about 2 percent during Bush’s tenure, the most tepid growth over any eight-year span since data collection began seven decades ago. Gross domestic product, a broad measure of economic output, grew at the slowest pace for a period of that length since the Truman administration. And Americans’ incomes grew more slowly than in any presidency since the 1960s, other than that of Bush’s father.” The Boston Globe’s Washington bureau takes a stab at the Bush legacy: “Academics, while echoing many of the criticisms, also note that Bush’s presidency won’t be an easy one for future historians to assess. While most unsuccessful presidencies, such as Jimmy Carter’s and Herbert Hoover’s, involved presidents who were considered captives of events, unable to muster effective responses, Bush’s was one of bold strokes that, for better or worse, will be debated for a long time,” they write. “From his precipitous decision to invade Iraq to his order giving wide latitude to CIA interrogators of terrorism suspects to his demand for $700 billion to shore up financial institutions, Bush’s presidency has been one of strong actions followed by equally strong — and in some cases even stronger — reactions.” Another GOP retirement (2010 is looking bleak already): “Sen. George V. Voinovich is expected to announce today that he will not seek a third term next year, The Dispatch has learned,” Jack Torry, Jonathan Riskind and Joe Hallett report in the Columbus Dispatch. “Voinovich spokesman Chris Paulitz declined comment. But Voinovich, R-Ohio, is scheduled to reveal his decision in a conference call with his most loyal supporters and fundraisers.” “Voinovich’s expected decision would end one of the most storied political careers in Ohio history. During his more than 40 years in politics, the 72-year-old Republican has held the offices of governor, senator, lieutenant governor and mayor of Cleveland.” The Kicker: “This has been tougher than finding a Commerce Secretary.” — Barack Obama, to George Stephanopoulos, on his puppy search (which is narrowed to either a labradoodle or a Portuguese water hound.) “Whoops.” — George W. Bush, corrected by his father about the appropriate place to leave a note for his successor, in keeping with presidential tradition. Bookmark the link below to get The Note’s daily morning analysis:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/the_note/index.html For up-to-the-minute political updates check out The Note’s blog . . . all day every day:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/ Follow The Note blog on Twitter: http://twitter.com/thenote

User Comments

Obama does not have the GUTS to make a good president.
His plans are to throw your TAX dollars at every problem that comes along. He will create bigger and more government programs that you know that will never go away.

Posted by: doggie | January 12, 2009, 9:15 am 9:15 am

“He will create bigger and more government programs that you know that will never go away.”
Such as?
“Obama does not have the GUTS to make a good president.”
What makes you say that? I think you’re mistaking brains for a lack of guts.

Posted by: Silky | January 12, 2009, 9:18 am 9:18 am

“Salesman” ?
Fitting.
They rank right up there with Lawyers and Politicians.

Posted by: ajax | January 12, 2009, 9:23 am 9:23 am

Can we impeach Obama before he gets elected?????

Posted by: Billy Bob | January 12, 2009, 9:26 am 9:26 am

Borrowing from Peter(middle class) to pay Paul(Bush: Wallstreet, Obama: People that don’t pay taxes to start with). I am beginning to wish I was Paul.

Posted by: ajax | January 12, 2009, 9:29 am 9:29 am

“They rank right up there with Lawyers and Politicians.”
Ummm…well, pretty much everybody in Washington is a lawyer, politician and salesman. He just happens to be better than everybody else. All politicians have to sell their positions. That’s a GOOD thing.
“Can we impeach Obama before he gets elected?????”
For what? Applying logic and rational thought to presidential decision-making?

Posted by: Silky | January 12, 2009, 9:29 am 9:29 am

“Borrowing from Peter(middle class) to pay Paul(Bush: Wallstreet, Obama: People that don’t pay taxes to start with).”
Again…ummmmm…he’s going to CUT taxes for the middle class. And you people vastly over-emphasize the financial consequences of welfare on the middle class. You guys really have more relevant gripes you could identify if you actually paid attention.

Posted by: Silky | January 12, 2009, 9:32 am 9:32 am

Does Washington, Congress or Obama understand the definition of EMERGENCY?
How long does it take a group of corrupt, lying, politicians to wake up and start DOING instead of TALKING?
They can throw our tax money away REBUILDING IRAQ when that country has over $60 billion in oil revenues just reported. Meanwhile, they can’t get their stupid a$$es in gear to do something about the RECESSION in America.
They all suck.

Posted by: Normandy | January 12, 2009, 9:33 am 9:33 am

“Well, Mr. President-elect — you didn’t think that wouldn’t apply to you, too, did you?”
Did a blogging response accidentally make its way into the article? The question reads like a typical sore loser lament.

Posted by: kat | January 12, 2009, 9:34 am 9:34 am

You guys are Idiots, who do you think got us in this mess.Obama is comming into Office with a mess he will have to clean up!

Posted by: Demo Rules | January 12, 2009, 9:35 am 9:35 am

This guy said he would cut taxes and stop the spending. Another trillion for all of us to pay on for the next 100 years. He is a typical political liar.

Posted by: Jim Rod | January 12, 2009, 9:39 am 9:39 am

I do find it interesting that when campaigning, “change” is suppose to happen as soon as taking office, but after the election, it requires “patience”.

Posted by: LongT | January 12, 2009, 9:40 am 9:40 am

Before there is any more spending or bail out the President elect should balance the budget and get rid of the deficit. America’s credit rating and credibility will sky rocket and the economy will boom again. ANY STIMULUS THAT DOES NOT COME FROM SPENDING CUTS WILL BE TOXIC TO THE ECONOMY. I am disappointed that Obama is going beyond his election promise of tax cuts to the middle class and a universal health care plan and handing out and bailing out the same crooks and filthy rich incompetent CEOs who have made off with the last bail out without helping even a fraction of those facing foreclosure. The last bail out has failed to stem the tide of foreclosures instead banks and financial institutions are on a feeding frenzy and are hoarding tax payer monies. I have an idea of how the 350 billion dollars that are left over from the last bail out can be spent, they can go straight to paying off the deficit. Government has lost confidence in their ability to regulate, monitor or track appropriated funds of we the people. The people on main street have sacrificed much for the greed of others and the incompetence of government. It is time the government does little and does it more efficiently and effectively rather than constantly making tax revenues disappear into thin air. I would like a bitter medicine that works then a sale of sweet talk and deception and further worsening of the deficit. The nation has already taken hits because of useless wars and bail outs and extortion by the government that has ruined the economy and following the same old path is not going to result in new outcomes. The massive hit taken by the retirement funds (401Ks) is a clear indication that social security should never be dipped into and remain solvent and the mere thought of privatizing it should be erased for ever.

Posted by: gjkotw01 | January 12, 2009, 9:42 am 9:42 am

Serious restrictions need to be put in place before releasing the second half of the TARP funds. Not just on how those particular dollars are used, but on the fiscal responsibility of each company receiving them. Too much of the first half was wasted on executive trips and bonuses, such as one man who received $25 million for two months of work: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/the-10-worst-bailout-boondoggles-slides.aspx?slide-number=6. The companies responded that TARP funds were not used for the bonuses. But imagine if I asked you for $100 saying I was broke and couldn’t afford groceries. After the loan I buy a Ferrari. Wouldn’t you be a little angry? And would it matter to you if I said, “well, your EXACT $50 was used for groceries, not for the Ferrari!” All companies claiming to need the TARP funds need to tighten their belts considerably, with the rules stated now.

Posted by: 1bluestocking | January 12, 2009, 9:43 am 9:43 am

Obama will not cut taxes for the middle class, yes he will give checks to all those that sit home doing nothing. Obama will cripple the middle class working person. I agree Obama is a great salesman, but do you trust salesmen? look at Madoff!!!! Just see how Obama will spin everything while skewering the working middle class.

Posted by: Valerie Tarantolo | January 12, 2009, 9:44 am 9:44 am

I am well pleased with my President Elect. The Note – not so much. You seem just eager to criticize Obama personally, rather than giving us any useful informationon about the debate over the stimulus. I just read the ABC site these days to see what news the right wingers are consuming. ABC is not my most trusted news source, not by a long shot.

Posted by: Amy | January 12, 2009, 9:44 am 9:44 am

Obama wants to create more jobs – government jobs. Great. It takes 10 normal hardworking people to do the job of one government employee. And guess which class of Americans will get all those benefits-galore, steady-paying government jobs???
The rest of us will see our jobs taken away by the influx of foreigners coming over here on work visas. What we don’t send overseas, we give away to the foreigners that the Federal government allows to come to America and steal our jobs, overcrowd our schools, universities, healthcare systems, highways, and cities.

Posted by: cytheria | January 12, 2009, 9:45 am 9:45 am

“This guy said he would cut taxes and stop the spending. Another trillion for all of us to pay on for the next 100 years. He is a typical political liar.”
No, he is dealing with a crisis of monumental proportions. And unless you make more than $175K a year, you will most likely see your taxes decrease. As far as spending, that’s what is needed to get us out of this recession. His suggestions will create jobs and result in more efficient management in the long term on numerous fronts. And most importantly, we need to get the banks lending again. That’s going to require providing them a cushion.

Posted by: Silky | January 12, 2009, 9:45 am 9:45 am

LongT is right! but changes must happen too to correct things that are going wrong, and to introduce new changes for the best of its citizens..what do you say

Posted by: web management | January 12, 2009, 9:45 am 9:45 am

“I do find it interesting that when campaigning, “change” is suppose to happen as soon as taking office, but after the election, it requires “patience”.”
The “patience” applies to the economy. “Change” applies to doing things much more logically and effectively than they’ve been done for the last 8 years. It’s pretty clear…sorry it needs to be explained to you.

Posted by: Silky | January 12, 2009, 9:47 am 9:47 am

“Obama will not cut taxes for the middle class, yes he will give checks to all those that sit home doing nothing.”
He won’t? The lack of reason in some of you people is astonishing. He’s said from the beginning…and is still saying…that he’s going to cut taxes for the middle class. Yet, you have a crystal ball, I guess. When he does, that’ll be the time for you to sit down and shut up…k? And again…your welfare gripes are so freaking ridiculous. Is it welfare or unemployment? Because many people drawing unemployment right now, have paid WAY more into it than they’ve collected. Welfare…whatever. It’s nothing in the grand scheme of things. Find something substantial to complain about.

Posted by: Silky | January 12, 2009, 9:51 am 9:51 am

Nice country we live in. An impeached Governor gets to “pick” a state senator; the President is a Texan jerk not fit to clean up cow manure; the President-elect only cares about making history and photo ops; Congress is so busy lining up for political favors and visiting brothels that they can’t do their jobs. And we pay our taxes to make foreign countries democratic while they kill our soldiers.

Posted by: hammersmith | January 12, 2009, 9:55 am 9:55 am

Sorry Silky, from what I have seen in my 50 years of life, Politicians are liars and crooks.
So far, I don’t see much different from Obama.
If, in the next 4 years he proves to me that he is different, I will be one of the first in line to vote for him.
But, don’t ask me to believe CRAP from a politician. Sorry, I have lost ALL faith in Washington, DC. Republicans and Democrats have screwed us. Over and Over.
Maybe he will be the one to turn my view around, but don’t ask me to change my view on a bunch of promises. A lot of which, he has changed after the election.

Posted by: ajax | January 12, 2009, 10:05 am 10:05 am

cytheria
The jobs being created are construction related. There are public works projects being funded, fixing bridges, building schools, weatherizing public buildings, etc. and also jobs in the “green” industry, building wind turbines and solar panels. Obama is trying to get us off oil so our money doesn’t flow to other countries, but stays right here, creating jobs in the alternative energy field. What news source are you listening to that gives you the impression Obama is creating state worker type, pencil pushing, jobs?

Posted by: Amy | January 12, 2009, 10:06 am 10:06 am

hammersmith. You have stated the truth and I hope you continue to hammer the point that change will not come from doing business the same way as it has been done in the past 8 years and by assuming that having the laws on the books and regulation and oversight will prevent the swindlers from sucking the tax payer funds. There is a breed of a very large Swindler’s list that has been siphoning out the tax payer funds that they get caught maybe once in a century. The last century it was Ponzi and this century it was made off. Those in the so called wheel of misfortune who invested monies in charities were getting tax-free status for their charities which means the government was deprived of the revenues by those individuals who invested with made off.

Posted by: gjkotw01 | January 12, 2009, 10:07 am 10:07 am

So many are still wondering what happened to the first installment of 350 billion. Is there a qualified individual out there who can answer this question. Can a condition be attached to this second installment of taxpayer money; that in order for it to be released, the institutions that received the first installment have to make full disclosure on how the money has been spent to date? I see where there are Republicans in Congress who want to attach oversight to this second installment but why aren’t they pressing more for disclosure of the first installment? Or for that matter, why aren’t both parties demanding this if they truly represent the people?

Posted by: Albert | January 12, 2009, 10:07 am 10:07 am

Way to go “cytheria.” True about the foreigners taking American jobs.
I just lost my job to a guy from the U.K. over here on a work visa. He works a little cheaper than I do. So I go, he stays. He can’t even vote because he’s not a citizen, but he can take my job!!!!!!!!!
Thanks America.

Posted by: tapclicktap | January 12, 2009, 10:07 am 10:07 am

tapclicktap:
Lost my job to a Chinese girl who is younger, less educated than me, and will work for the entry-level pay.
She came here on a visa and the company will keep sponsoring her because she costs less to employ.

Posted by: jennielee | January 12, 2009, 10:24 am 10:24 am

Bush——”Ummm ummm ummm, it wasn’t my fault. Wahhh Wahhh. You people were mean to me. You do good work, but you were still mean to me. WAhhhhhhhhhhhh”
Good bye Mr. Bush, good luck on making that coffee next Wednesday. Pretty much it is just pushing a button. Thank God it is JUST coffee.
p.s. I had never had to resort to name-calling. You just fun to quote.

Posted by: repsrases | January 12, 2009, 10:25 am 10:25 am

NO MORE BAILOUT MONEY UNTIL WE SEE AN ACCOUNTING FOR EVERY SENT OF THE PREVIOUS $350B!! This is a money grab pure and simple. We don’t even know where the first $350B went people!!! All that taxpayer money spent and nothing has helped out main street yet. The banks are still using their share of the money to consolidate. Now the banks are trying to reduce everyone’s credit lines in order to lower everyone’s credit scores in order to charge higher interest rates. No help for main street with our own money??!! STOP THESE GOV’T CROOKS!! CALL AND EMAIL YOUR REPS TODAY AND TELL THEM NO MORE BAILOUT MONEY UNTIL WE GET SOME RELIEF!!! We are being robbed people!!!!!!! Obama is just another gov’t crook!!!

Posted by: grumpyoldmanintown | January 12, 2009, 10:39 am 10:39 am

“Obama is just another gov’t crook!!!”
Obama didn’t even vote on the $700B package, let alone administer it. He’s the one who went on Stephanopolous yesterday and said that there was no accounting for the first $350B and that can’t happen with the second installment.

Posted by: Silky | January 12, 2009, 10:42 am 10:42 am

“Obama is just another gov’t crook!!!”
Oh my goodness. You mean it is his fault that there wasn’t any accounting of what happened to all of the money? Geez and he isn’t even in office yet. OMG

Posted by: repsrases | January 12, 2009, 10:43 am 10:43 am

Besides, he’s far more eloquent than your garden variety government crook.

Posted by: Silky | January 12, 2009, 10:51 am 10:51 am

No Obama didn’t vote on the $700B because he was too busy campaigning, but he did support it. Obama is a DC insider and part of the corrupt Chicago political machine. I’m not referring to his actions as president. There’s enough evidence BEFORE he takes office that he is just more of the same old dirty politics!! My comments wasn’t just about Obama. I was referring to ALL GOV’T POLITICIANS WHO GAIN MONETARILY AT THE EXPENSE OF THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS. BTW, instead of appropriating more of the American taxpayers money, what if Obama donated some of his campaign billions for a start?

Posted by: grumpyoldmanintown | January 12, 2009, 11:02 am 11:02 am

“There’s enough evidence BEFORE he takes office that he is just more of the same old dirty politics!!”
Actually, not really. But continue to indict without evidence and prior to him even being sworn in. Let the man work. And honestly, I don’t care if the president is a crook, as long as he gets things done and addresses those areas needing attention with reason and logic. Power corrupts. Always has in human history. This country was built by crooks.

Posted by: Silky | January 12, 2009, 11:07 am 11:07 am

You’re right. Obama didn’t vote for the $700B bailout because he was too busy campaigning, but he supported it. Obama is a DC insider and part of the corrupt Chicago political machine. These are the facts before he begins his term as president. If Obama was really interested in more than “politics as usual” he would donate some of his campaign billions instead of asking for more American taxpayer money!! Now that would be real “change”!!!

Posted by: grumpyoldmanintown | January 12, 2009, 11:11 am 11:11 am

Oops, sorry for the double post. Interesting that you don’t care if the incoming president is a crook. I won’t support anyone that asks for another taxpayer dime without accurate accountability for the first $350B. That’s just crazy talk!!

Posted by: grumpyoldmanintown | January 12, 2009, 11:13 am 11:13 am

The first $350B is water under the bridge. It’s unlikely that we’ll get an accurate accounting of that. However, Obama has indicated that he will see that it is tracked.

Posted by: Silky | January 12, 2009, 11:26 am 11:26 am

“NO MORE BAILOUT MONEY UNTIL WE GET SOME RELIEF!!! We are being robbed people!!!!!!! Obama is just another gov’t crook!!!”
Posted by: grumpyoldmanintown | Jan 12, 2009 10:39:43 AM
“CLASSIC ‘Git A Rope Politics.’ You would think The Cynics ‘at least’ intelligent enough to wait the prerequisite eight (8) days before indicting The Guy!” (You can then ascribe the fault to him going back to 1962 ……. the year he was born!)

Posted by: bobj72 | January 12, 2009, 11:27 am 11:27 am

it has nothing to do with brains someone up above said that Obama was just smarter than the rest of the liars that are there in Washington, no i disagree, it was the media playing favorites that got this not ready for the job elected. his own party is trying to grab more power even from him, they are all jumping up and down kicking and stomping there feet like children in a temper tantrum and this is what is running our country, i want the best for our country, but i will never have a public servant that works for me tell me i can’t have my freedoms and rights that our Constitution guaratees, no government shall be able to infringe on our bill or rights yet this man will swear on the Bible to up hold the Constitution and bill of rights and then turn around and try to take power he is not allowed by we the people, we must wake up America, we can’t afford to loose just one of our rights, like our 2nd amendment, leave the legal gun owners alone and do something about the criminal, look at the other European countries the UN tricked into disarming there citizens and look at the crime rate there, criminals feel real safe when they know law abiding citizens are helpless, well not us and not ever, if he turns from his campaign promises and lie’s on the Bible and not up hold our Constitution i think that we the people should have any high up official that lie’s put up on charges of perjury and then removed from office, i think this would be a tool for we the people to keep our power over our elected servants in the future, no more lies. being held to the truth of what they promise or jail. Obama and BIden ran as pro 2nd amendment politicans and if they don’t keep there word, if they have a word, then i think we the people should remove them would work for me, i say if you want not to become the slave of the government, join the NRA and let them fight in court for all of your civil rights, even if you don’t own a gun yet or ever, the NRA fights for everyone of our freedoms, and any country that allowed the government to protect them has died or will soon. the firearms industry employ’s millions of people and they never needed a bail out. we need our values and our way of life left alone, go after criminals yes, go after law abiding gun owner no and it is stupid. the police will say to your face it is not there job to have to protect us, so why would you let a government that doesn’t have the power to do so, make is so you can’t defend yourself our loved ones. even if there were no firearms factories in America, do you think criminals wouldn’t have a gun anyway? please. most attacks are knives and clubs not guns, but in a state that has legal concealed carry and the castle doctrine have the lowest crime ratings ever, don’t have to beleive me, this was the FBI that wrote that this year. so join the NRA and stand strong with real Americans that say freedom is our God given right and we will stand and fight for it, just like our founding fathers did. this nation was forged by guns and rightous people using them. i pray America wakes up just like Chuck Norris has been saying loudly and even Ted the nut Nudgent, though i love his patriot attitude. we need to stand up now to Washington before it becomes illegal to do so. A Patriot.

Posted by: Eddie | January 12, 2009, 11:36 am 11:36 am

nn Coulter was just on The View. She sure makes the republicans look good. LOL Even Elizabeth, the resident republican, was disgusted with her. So it seemed.
With this interview to nowhere and President Bush goodbye to the press, it was another red-letter day for the Republicans.

Posted by: reprases | January 12, 2009, 11:45 am 11:45 am

Eddie, you might want to try to be more concise if you want people have any idea what you are talking about.

Posted by: Silky | January 12, 2009, 11:50 am 11:50 am

The first 350 billion made the ailing financial giants solvent again. They are sitting on the money now, their futures, their salaries, their annual bonuses once again secure. The giants will probably list the bailout money as earned income since there’s no reason why they can’t. Our government just gave it to them without any stipulations. They won’t make the same mistake of lending to bad credit risks any time soon. They came under heavy criticism and were threatened with extensive regulation by CONGRESS for complying with the wishes of CONGRESS. They still have our money. Along with our money, the CEOs probably have an attitude. Nobody enjoys being the scapegoat.

Posted by: mmonroeliveson | January 12, 2009, 11:55 am 11:55 am

Careful Silky, I think Eddie has a gun.

Posted by: mmonroeliveson | January 12, 2009, 12:03 pm 12:03 pm

I couldn’t care less about the 2nd Amendment. People who are pro-guns are delusional freak-shows fighting for something based on tremendously far-fetched scenarios. “If THEY have a gun, I want to have a gun!” Well….THEY aren’t coming for you, you freak. That said, I think the horse has left the proverbial barn on guns.

Posted by: Silky | January 12, 2009, 12:08 pm 12:08 pm

And chances are that if they ARE coming for you, you won’t see it coming.

Posted by: Silky | January 12, 2009, 12:12 pm 12:12 pm

Monroe – What do you think about Bush/Obama asking for the next $350B of the TARP? I can’t find any information about where and how the intial installment of $350B was spent. Can you direct me to the website and/or GAO documentation that outlines the TARP expenditures to date? I just can’t find it…LOL!!!

Posted by: fairelection2008 | January 12, 2009, 12:21 pm 12:21 pm

Barry is a socialist. He has to be seen as an advocate for capitalism, but it is a charade, nothing more.
The more anti-American, anti-capitalist and anti-white statements that surrounded barry only seemed to boost his popularity with the media and the rest of the nutty liberal bunch.
Bush was already becoming a liberal republican with spending (the worst kind), but now we have just elected the American version of hugo chavez. Hang on, it’s going to get pretty bumpy!

Posted by: dave | January 12, 2009, 1:48 pm 1:48 pm

mmonroeliveson: “The giants will probably list the bailout money as earned income since there’s no reason why they can’t. Our government just gave it to them without any stipulations. ”
The money was structured in the form of a loan, guarantee or purchase of various forms of ownership. These are by definition liabilities that banks can not list as earned income. In addition, it is astronomically unlikely that the government will not get at least a portion of that money back in the future – possibly all of it. Claiming that the bailout “cost” $700 billion is really quite false and shows a fundamental lack of understanding or a group distorting the truth for propaganda purposes.

Posted by: jhw539 | January 12, 2009, 1:56 pm 1:56 pm

dave: “only seemed to boost his popularity with the media and the rest of the nutty liberal bunch. ”
If by “the nutty liberal bunch” you mean the majority of Americans who voted for him in the largest percentage showing for a non-incumbent ever, I guess you’re right. (And only 1984 Reagan had a higher level of support.)
After 8 years of Republican rule, the country is indeed getting a bit exuberant at the prospect of a return to competence and intelligence in the government, as opposed to being led by folks so poorly educated that they seriously suggest Obama’s proven voting track record indicates an agenda anywhere near Hugo Chavez’s.

Posted by: jhw539 | January 12, 2009, 2:01 pm 2:01 pm

jhw539
By “poorly educated folks” running this country for the past 8 years, are you referring to Bush? He graduated with degrees from both Harvard and Yale. He earned higher grades then Kerry at Yale and never flunked out of school like the messiah of global warming did.
Barry is hugo’s and castro’s American twin, which is why both socialist dictators have said VERY positive things about him.
These past 8 years have been crumbling due to liberals trying to make everything fair with the housing market. In 03′ Bush said that the housing market was going to plummet if meausures were not taken to restrict loans. Guess who fought against that by screaming “you just hate poor people!” hmm…
Maxine Waters
Barney Frank
Chris Dodd
Chuck Schumer
Harry Ried
Pelosi
and of course Barry O- he actually was involved in lawsuits against a bank that was being “mean” to minorities in the early 90′s. You didn’t hear about that too much on the news, did you?

Posted by: dave | January 12, 2009, 2:10 pm 2:10 pm

dave: Based on your defense of Bush, I would guess you’re part of the 20% or so who still think he’s doing a heckuva job. I don’t care about grades, I care about results and I am impressed by Obama’s proven leadership (particularly a few laws on the books in IL he wrote and got signed into law well before he was in the spotlight).
Your rants about Liberals being responsible for the current problem are right off of talk radio and bear little relation to reality. But whatever makes you happy – the majority of Americans decisively voted that they’re not listening to your simplistic and flat out wrong theories anymore.

Posted by: jhw539 | January 12, 2009, 2:18 pm 2:18 pm

“Barry is a a socialist” Dave, do you realize you are starting to sound like that is YOUR mantra!
Maybe you are a socialpath. You wouldn’t be the first. That might be more of a correct statement than your’s. Just because you keep saying it, won’t necessarilary make it any more true. And the chance of you being a socialpath is every bit more real. There is one of them on every street corner and every neighborhood.
Look up the definition……They blame others for everything.

Posted by: drdrdr | January 12, 2009, 2:19 pm 2:19 pm

The Substance of Obama’s Plan:
We’re still evaluating how we’re going to approach the whole issue of …
We’re going to be looking at …
But what we tried to do was put forward a plan that says …
Well, I think that what we have to do is evaluate whether or not …
What I’ve done is asked my team to come together, come up with a set of principles around how we are going to …
They are going to report back to me in the next month to give me a plan…
Now what I’ve done is indicated to my team that we’ve got to …
What we have to do is to take a look at … and determine how do we make the system more efficient …
The dog ate my homework.

Posted by: MadeInUSA | January 12, 2009, 2:55 pm 2:55 pm

Which is exactly what he should be saying until it’s time to actually send it to the Hill. He’s not the president just yet, y’know.

Posted by: Silky | January 12, 2009, 3:02 pm 3:02 pm

drdrdr or jhw539
Can you please tell me where you got the barry flavored kool-aid you are both apparently still drunk off of?
If I am going to survive the next four years with a president who is racist, anti-American, and anti-capitalist, I might as well get drunk too!

Posted by: dave | January 12, 2009, 3:16 pm 3:16 pm

drdrdr
What in God’s name is a “socialpath”?
Are you meaning to call barry O a SOCIALIST- if so then you are dead on!!

Posted by: dave | January 12, 2009, 3:41 pm 3:41 pm

Salesman?
Obama is NOT a salesman. That would imply that he’s actually worked a day in the private sector, or made money for a business, or understands what it’s like to earn a day’s pay. To call him a salesman insults honest, hard-working salespeople.
Criminal Racketeer….. Charlatan….. Empty Suit…. Academic Know-nothing….
NOT a Salesman.

Posted by: BlofeldBuildings | January 12, 2009, 4:23 pm 4:23 pm

BlofeldBuildings, dave & MadeInUSA; “Thank Goodness” Your INFECTIONS are No Longer Contagious.

Posted by: bobj72 | January 12, 2009, 5:17 pm 5:17 pm

There has been a recurring refrain from the Anti-Obama Folks, who have claimed that; “Any Negative or Complaint about President Elect Obama, is regarded as a ‘racial slight’ or the party offering the ‘argument’ is assumed to be a racist.” To clear the air on this matter, let’s begin with an unstanding of “where we are.” First off, the Nov. 08′ Election DOES NOT make today ‘The Post Racism Era!’ Racism of various types are as ‘alive and well today’ as they were in the Pre-Civil Rights Act era (1964.) (Truth-Be-Known; Despite the election of an African American President in this cycle, U. S. Race Relations are still “A-Work-In-Progress.”) Now to the matter of Anti-Obama sentiments; There are some folks who were “Not Necessarily” Big Fans of President George W. Bush. Any Negatives or Complaints lodged against President G. W. Bush, were NEVER questioned as to their RACIAL INTENT.’ And until “The Same” can be (undoubtedly) said, related to President Elect Barack Hussein Obama, we have to be careful as to HOW we go about issuing Negatives and/or Complaints about the President Elect. Now that seems ‘reasonable and quite civil’ to me, but I do realize that could be somewhat overwhelming and extremely difficult for some others. (It’s just something we will have to continually ‘work on.’) We may want to begin by avoiding stereotypes and vulgar overtones. Hopefully you find this ‘status report’ to be helpful, as it is offered ‘with good intentions!’

Posted by: bobj72 | January 12, 2009, 6:06 pm 6:06 pm

Promising change does not mean Obama has a magic wand. Rushing precipitously into complex situations without adequate forethought and planning was a George Bush thing, which we are hopefully leaving behind with the new administration. Go Obama!

Posted by: 1bluestocking | January 12, 2009, 7:32 pm 7:32 pm

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.