Obama's Changing Policies Good and Bad

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 **](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122843615613281339.html#printMode)
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](http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=313287539459542)
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.

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! :roll::roll::roll:

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?

Change, of course! :roll:

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

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?

And what else did you expect?

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

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!

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.

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.


**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.

**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!:shock:

Careful who you vote for in the future fellas.

Nationalizing Industry?

Taking risks with bailout for U.S. automakers

WASHINGTON: When President-elect Barack Obama talked on Sunday about realigning the American automobile industry he was quick to offer a caution, lest he sound more like the incoming leader of France, or perhaps Japan.

We don’t want government to run companies,” Obama told Tom Brokaw on “Meet the Press.” “Generally, government historically hasn’t done that very well.”

But what Obama went on to describe was a long-term government bailout that would be conditioned on government oversight. It could mean that the government would mandate, or at least heavily influence, what kind of cars companies make, what mileage and environmental standards they must meet and what large investments they are permitted to make — to recreate an industry that Obama said “actually works, that actually functions.”

It all sounds perilously close to a word that no one in Obama’s camp wants to be caught uttering: nationalization.

Well which is it President elect Obama?

You can’t say your against it and then propose more controlling oversight.

President Barack Obama…Good Times, Enjoy

Obama’s not exactly what you were hoping for eh, joey?:mrgreen:

Geez, the liberals are more naive than I could have ever imagined- thinking that he would be beholden to them. :roll: