Some progress...

**R13** · February 5th, 2009, 12:28 AM

Salary cap for executives.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29003620/

Extending healthcare for children.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29011620/

Keeps making good moves and helping things. And looks like the new Senate is doing a great job too. And we aren't muslim or communists yet lmao. Where's the griping?

**1inStripes** · February 5th, 2009, 09:08 AM

Hopefully the Senate will do a good job and cut a lot of fat out of the House passed on the stimulus package. Isn't it amazing how the sides of flip flopped on the idea of a stimulus?

**imported_elp6n** · February 5th, 2009, 09:36 AM

I feel pretty good about it all.
Of course there'll be back and forths and finger pointing about the stimulus, but it wouldn't be Congress if there wasn't!

The executive pay cap was a pretty intriguing proposal - make no salary higher thant he president's if you're getting taxpayer bailout. I would expect these companies being targeted would find a way to get around that somehow in red tape and papertrails(they managed to give out $18B in bonuses....)

**Unchained** · February 5th, 2009, 03:48 PM

At least the man is doing something. I feel good about the man at least trying.

**R13** · February 6th, 2009, 12:24 AM

He's been doing a pretty good job so far.

**1inStripes** · February 6th, 2009, 09:29 AM

Its very early and he is trying to do a lot of things quickly. The first 100 days is always considered very important for a president. Lord knows I hope he does well. I hope any president does well. There's only two things that I can really critique at this time personally. One, he's gotten caught flipping a few of his own executive orders so far for staffers (ie lobbyist), and the other is what the President called a morality issue. On the same day if I am not mistaken, he said that Gitmo was morally wrong and wants it closed within a year. He went on to open back up an overseas abortion funding program. Placing one on the wrong of morality and not the other is poor IMO.

I do like the freezes he put on staffers making over 100k, and as elp mentioned above the cap on executives of on the bailout.

These first 100 days are, and will be very interesting.

**Counts** · February 6th, 2009, 10:08 AM

I agree at this point it is WAY to early for a good or bad review.....Some of his appointiees Tax problems have given him a bit of a black eye but IMHO That is more there issue than it should be his and the EU has made him back down off of Buy American stuff in the stimules........The CEO salery cap seems like a good idea but I worry that it may have unintended consenquences. The SCHIP is the logical 1st step to his Unaversal Health Care thing.

All in all I think Obama is doing as well as can be expected and I think that the media has turned on him a bit makeing some of his slipups seem worse than they actualy are and I am afraid that if he can not get the economy turned around that the negative media coverage will snowball.

**R13** · February 6th, 2009, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by 1inStripes

Its very early and he is trying to do a lot of things quickly. The first 100 days is always considered very important for a president. Lord knows I hope he does well. I hope any president does well. There's only two things that I can really critique at this time personally. One, he's gotten caught flipping a few of his own executive orders so far for staffers (ie lobbyist), and the other is what the President called a morality issue. On the same day if I am not mistaken, he said that Gitmo was morally wrong and wants it closed within a year. He went on to open back up an overseas abortion funding program. Placing one on the wrong of morality and not the other is poor IMO.

I do like the freezes he put on staffers making over 100k, and as elp mentioned above the cap on executives of on the bailout.

These first 100 days are, and will be very interesting.

He has always said he was pro-choice and completely against gitmo. It shouldn't have been a surprise with those issues, Clinton reversed it too when he took office. It's not just straight funding abortions, goes into education and contraception I believe - and of course things like that aren't as available as they are here. 180 industrialized countries contribute to this, the US is the only one due to political reasons. If I'm not mistaken, I think I read somewheres when he did this that abortions were down while Clinton lifted this and were higher under Reagan, Bush, and W Bush.

**PVVikeFan** · February 6th, 2009, 11:31 AM

He needs to take charge of the stimulus bill before it gets completely out of control. Don't understand why he let Nancy Pelosi take charge of that. Anybody should have lnown she would have rolled out her wish list, exactly like she did. He will have to learn he can't simply show up occasionally like he did in the Senate. He said he was ready to lead and it is time for him to prove it. He won the election so even though I don't approve of him I hope he does the best job ever. I will reserve my judgement until he actually does something.

**1inStripes** · February 6th, 2009, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by Burton13

He has always said he was pro-choice and completely against gitmo. It shouldn't have been a surprise with those issues, Clinton reversed it too when he took office. It's not just straight funding abortions, goes into education and contraception I believe - and of course things like that aren't as available as they are here. 180 industrialized countries contribute to this, the US is the only one due to political reasons. If I'm not mistaken, I think I read somewheres when he did this that abortions were down while Clinton lifted this and were higher under Reagan, Bush, and W Bush.

I know that is what he said, but to say that Gitmo is immoral and turn around and support funding abortions globally is not very moral IMO. It is how he based it that rubs me wrong. Plus, one thing we keep hearing is that we need to take care of our economy, which I agree with. I don't see helping fund other countries with condoms, Cyclen and coathangers when we have more pressing needs here at home. If we are going to spend money, spend it on something that is pressing to US needs. If 180 countries contribute to that, thats fine, its their money. I have no input on how they spend it.

As for the last sentence in your statement, that is irrelevant to me. According to UNPF the results of death in childbirth has only declined 1% in from 90-05, so it seems to me that that 1% is nice, but to me, their successes is pretty minimal by their own numbers, so is the money just being wasted is my point? We average giving them just under $35 million a year according to their info since they said they had not received a total of $244 million in the last 7 years from the US.