Slashdot Mirror
Obama Administration Withholds FoIA Requests More Often Than Bush's
bonch writes "Agencies under the Obama administration cite security provisions to withhold information more often than they did under the Bush administration. For example, the 'deliberative process' exemption of the Freedom of Information Act was used 70,779 times in 2009, up from the 47,395 of 2008. Amusingly, the Associated Press has been waiting three months for the government to deliver records on its own Open Government Directive."
Breitbart.com? Really? Has Slashdot become Free Republic?
It doesn't mean anything until we get request comparison numbers and there is more than one exemption for FOIA. What about the others?
That's change I can believe in.
I'd like to be surprised - but it seems like all the presidents are mostly interchangeable these days.
Is this really surprising?
Here and agree with you well, I do. Proved to be no different and at times much worse, Obama administration from Bush one, they did. Hoping that with hope comes real change, we are.
it wouldn't surprise me if anti-obama spinsters would repeatedly request denied items just to contrive this story. out of context it's meaningless.
1) This is an AP story, Breitbart didn't write it.
2) If you don't think 2,000 pages that nobody has read which rebuilds 17% of the US economy according to the whims of a couple hundred Democrats doesn't represent an oppressive regime, then I don't know what to tell you.
I know you are trolling but one of Pres. Obama's big campaign points was that he was going to "change" Washington. He was going to run this wide open and "transparent" government. So far he has been anything but transparent. It's disappointing, I had some hopes about Pres. Obama (and I did not vote for him).
It's amazing how much hoopla goes into picking and voting for a particular party, when government is so much bigger than just one man (or woman). It makes you wonder if anything will ever, or can ever, change.
Why do you particularly trust Obama more than Bush? Obama's allegiance is, like Bush's was, to large corporations; it is simply a different set of corporations. When it comes to what is best for the people of America, both Obama and his administration operate under the assumption that the only way to benefit American citizens is to increase the profits of American corporations, even if that means subverting democratic processes at home and abroad. If you are not worried about your government sidestepping the very democratic principles that it was founded upon, then what exactly were you worried about when it came to Republicans?
Palm trees and 8
The agencies cited exemptions at least 466,872 times in budget year 2009, compared with 312,683 times the previous year, the review found. Over the same period, the number of information requests declined by about 11 percent, from 493,610 requests in fiscal 2008 to 444,924 in 2009.
Seriously, there is no need to speculate when the information was right there in front of you eyes.
The agencies cited exemptions at least 466,872 times in budget year 2009, compared with 312,683 times the previous year, the review found. Over the same period, the number of information requests declined by about 11 percent, from 493,610 requests in fiscal 2008 to 444,924 in 2009.
So total requests went down and the number of denials went up.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
... and he doesn't need to answer to the ignorant masses or explain himself to them.
If the media really cared about open government and barring corruption, they would be publishing daily headlines about denials to FOIA requests, how long they have been waiting, and what the alleged reason is. If the press did their job and informed the people rather than preach propaganda, people could be better armed with information to put pressure on elected officials and force them to move on come election day if the officials don't mend their ways.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
The first reaction, especially given the headline is, Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
But, as pointed out in the article: "Obama's directive, memorialized in written instructions from the Justice Department, appears to have been widely ignored."
Then we look into the details. The fiscal year that this article is covering started in October 2008 and ended in October 2009. So for the first quarter of the time period covered by this article, we weren't even in the Obama Administration.
Also, if we assume that the decision to exempt information from FOIA requests is made by senior officers in the respective agencies, and we know that Bush had 8 years to appoint people who shared his views, and that the Senate Republicans have been doing an impressive job of blocking and delaying Obama's appointments, let alone the "cleaning" that occurs once the new bosses are in place.
Should it come as a surprise to anyone that this last year was no better, and perhaps even worse than the previous year? Absolutely not. I would expect that this coming year should show improvement, provided the white house is willing to back up Obama's directive now that they have had time to get more of their appointments into positions of authority.
That said, I sure hope this article makes it to the President's desk and that he thinks long and hard about it.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
If I understand it correctly, more than one exemption can be used in a single denial. It's entirely possible that more exemptions are being filed while at the same time a higher proportion of requests are being honored, with the rejected requests simply getting multiple exemptions where before they would only get one. Not saying this is the case, just that even with those numbers it's not possible to see the whole picture.
I am in total agreement with arkham6. The AP does not go into the real numbers. This is your normal, mainstream, boring news story with bad statistics. What was the jump or drop in percentage of denied FOIA requests? Anyway... Just more hot air to keep us fighting over Obama.
Have you seen what he's up against? The Democrats were never as obstructive to President Bush.
The problem is that Obama's main idea of change - bipartisanship - is the least productive way of making change
in America.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
So total requests went down and the number of denials went up.
Not necessarily. The number of "cited exemptions" is not the number of denials, it is closer to the number of reasons for denial. Like a lawyer, these agencies will frequently cite more than one reason to avoid release. It may even be that given Obama's directive to be more open to FOIA requests that the agencies are just covering their asses and citing a lot more exemptions when they do deny a request. For example, if the average number of exemptions went from 1 to 2 per denial, that would mean an actual decrease of about one third in actual denials since 2008.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Bullshit. Bipartisanship works both ways... The Democrats are asking the Republicans to "work with us", yet the Democrats are refusing to do the same! If you disagree, please explain the purpose of the closed door meetings between Dems and the Pres on healthcare. In what way can a closed meeting promote "working together" when half of the decision makers are not even invited...
What he's up against? He made his bed (By touting "change" and "openness"), and now he needs to lie in it... The truth has come out in the past year. He's a politician... Plain and simple. Sure, his campaign made it look like he was something different, but the reality of the matter is in the end of the day, they are all politicians...
Who gave Bush 4 yrs before they howled, vandalized, bitched and moan - and ridiculed!?
Have you seen what he's up against? The Democrats were never as obstructive to President Bush.
The only people stopping Obama are angry voters, and the Dems he can't get on board with his agenda. Note...the Dems control BOTH Houses of Congress by a wide margin. He's not "obstructed" by the R's, as they can't do squat to stop him. They can't even filibuster now that they have Scott Brown since the D's are happy to use Reconciliation.
Watch a little Rachel Maddow, read a little of the HuffPo, you'll be surprised just how many times liberal sources DO report on stuff like this. The liberal blogosphere is kinda pissed that Obama isn't the far-left bleeding-hear socialist that conservatives make him out to be, and they call him out on it quite a bit.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
After all, threats against the president's life have tripled since Obama was elected ;)
Blar.
Do you realize that line means the numbers quoted are not comparable. If more than one "exemption" can be cited per request, then the number of exemptions, which they are quoting, does not actually tell you how many FOIA requests were withheld. It could easily be that the Obama administration is being more clear about what is being withheld and why for any given request, and that leads to a larger "exemptions" count. The problem is, without more info the numbers obviously do not mean what they are being represented to mean.
(From the EPA report, though all agencies use the same criteria)
a. Exemption 1: Classified national defense and foreign relations information
b. Exemption 2: Internal agency rules and practices
c. Exemption 3: Information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law
d. Exemption 4: Trade secrets and other confidential business information
e. Exemption 5: Inter-agency or intra-agency communications that are protected by legal privileges
f. Exemption 6: Information involving matters of personal privacy
g. Exemption 7: Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, to the extent that the production of those records (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual
h. Exemption 8: Information relating to the supervision of financial institutions
i. Exemption 9: Geological information on wells
Some of those exemptions provide for a certain amount of creativity on the part of the denier.
What goes unmentioned:
97% of the millions of denied FoIA requests that make up this statistic were requests for Obama's birth certificate.
Indeed. Obama should quit trying to deal with these fools. It's 'No' for everything that contains even a small item that the Republicans disagree with. Bipartisan ship means that the right-wing folks need to accept some of the left wing folks' ideas. Instead it's just no no no even when the bills incorporate ideas from the Republican. Hell, Republicans who promised to vote Aye if Item X were placed in the bill still voted Nay!
Check the proposed Republican health care bills. They contain maybe 5% Democrat ideas. Republicans aren't interested in bipartisanship. They want it their way.
Blar.
All politicians are 'authoritarian' to Internet Libertarians.
Blar.
Were the inquiries both of a similar nature during both of the time periods in question? Or were there more rejected requests because the requests were asking for more sensitive info? Like most things that originate on Breibart/Drudge, too much information is missing....
If you do think that these 2,000 pages that "rebuild" 17% of the economy according to the whims of "a couple hundred Democrats" represent an oppressive regime, then I don't know what to tell you other than to get a reality check.
Every time I read a story about how Obama is continuing a Bush administration policy, or extending and exceding it, I post it to http://obamaisthenewbush.tumblr.com/
Having kept this up, on and off, for the last 6 months some patterns definitely appear. The Justice Department is seriously entrenched in covering its ass, cracking down hard on individual freedoms and privacy, and almost always falling on the side of big business.
I'm not disappointed because I believed all the pablum about "Change" and "Hope," but because Obama was a frickin' law professor. He should know better!
not all of 2009.
Just something to note.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I don't trust him for the simple fact that he's a politician.
Technoli
Go get more informative numbers from here. In 2008 56% of requests were granted. In 2009 61% of requests were granted. 2009 also worked to clear up the request backlog. It is a move in the right direction and as others have pointed out Bush was still in charge for part of FY 2009, so he might have skewed the numbers for the year.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/
No that's Bullshit. Democrats have presented a bill that's far to the right of a bill that Republicans would have even proposed, and Republicans are refusing to be a part of it at all. If there was not bi-partisanship than they would have rammed this through Congress and I'd be sitting pretty with socialized medicine right now. The problem is there have been far too many overtures to bi-partisanship.
Republicans don't want bi-partisanship. They want Obama to fail.
Closed door meetings? Stop bringing up bullshit Limbaugh talking points. There are always closed door meetings on capital hill. Are Republicans having public meetings on crafting there competing health care bill? That's a bullshit point.
I had no particular hopes for Obama, and so far, I'm impressed. Expectation management is the key to happiness.
See, even Yoda is disappointed by Obama
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
The old "nobody has read" argument. Very convincing. And, BTW, rebuilding 17% of the US economy doesn't have to be a bad thing if that part of the economy is unsustainable. If private enterprise did it you'd think that was progress because they know better but if government tries to do it they are an oppressive regime. Please, go back to your inflammatory, unhelpful water cooler then. Obama may be abusing the FoIA stuff and he and congress might end up making mistakes with healthcare and each individual point should be debated but the broad accusations when I'm guessing you haven't read the bill either is not behaving any better.
1) Sort of a fair point. What I'm saying is though, Breitbart and Drudge will run things from any source, with no confirmation and are slanted in their selection. But yeah, I respect AP, so I'll give that to you. 2) If its rebuilding it in a way I like. And yeah, I haven't read it all, but I've gotten some good synopses from sources I trust. If you're going to make an extraordinary claim like "The Dems are as oppressive as the last Republican administration," you're going to need a lot of evidence. We're talking about a party who's core value is conformity. And who presided over a mood of the time of pervasive bullying, anti-intellectualism, and fear mongering. This whole "they're all the same line," got tired after Bush beat Gore in 2000. Because Bush and Gore were the same. Yeah right. What a load.
Maybe the Democrats were "never as obstructive to President Bush" because they generally agreed with what he did when he did it. No Child Left Behind? That is a liberal (Democrat) education reform. It had support on both sides but it was pretty much written by Ted Kennedy. The war in Afghanistan? Both sides agreed that it was the right thing to do at the time. The war in Iraq? Same thing. I could go on. Besides, Pres. Bush seemed to get a lot done even though he had a slimmer Republican majority backing him than Pres. Obama has with Democrats. Democrats basically have a super majority and they still aren't getting anything done. Is it the Republicans blocking them? Partially, but if you believe polls, a majority of Americans disagree with all the big bills Congress and Pres. Obama are trying to pass.
Pres. Obama talks about trying to build bipartisan cooperation on bills yet he barely makes the faintest of overtures to the other side of the aisle. When Republicans protest what he's trying to do, all Pres. Obama does is say, "Remember Pres. Bush!" Pres. Obama is being held hostage by a past he and the other Democrats in Washington created for themselves. Instead of going forward in a true spirit of bipartisanship, Democrats are being just as partisan as Republicans ever were.
If they cannot accomplish what they want to accomplish with the majority of seats that they have, then the Democrats are simply ineffective. Pres. Obama needs to quickly learn like Pres. Clinton and Pres. Bush did that if he wants to stay in the White House and have a shot at helping effect meaningful change, he needs to stop calling for bipartisanship while at the same time ignoring the Republicans.
So yes, I do agree with you - bipartisanship is not an effective way of making change in America but that is begging the question that we need change. Do we need change because that was/is Obama's campaign slogan or do we need change simply for change's sake or do we need change because America needs fixing? The problem is that yes, Pres. Obama touts bipartisanship but he does not follow it. Democrats are ineffective right now because they are trying to force unpopular issues through Congress using shady tactics (just because some of these tactics were used in the past does not make them right and it does not justify their use now). Pres. Obama isn't just "up against" the Republicans, he's up against factions of Democrats (for being not liberal enough or too liberal), Independents (for having fiscal policy that makes Pres. Bush look like the stingiest, thriftiest guy you'll ever meet), and a majority of Americans. I'm not saying that a President should necessarily pander to polls but for someone who is as focused on polls as Pres. Obama seems to be, he sure does a good job at ignoring them.
Drudge and Breitbart are Fox News on the Web.
What do you expect to happen in 5 years when people catch on? Those will become the top two sites on the Web, like Fox News is on cable?
You seem to hate them because they actually hire people who aren't liberals. Apparently "non-biased" means "100% liberal".
2) If you don't think 2,000 pages that nobody has read which rebuilds 17% of the US economy according to the whims of a couple hundred Democrats doesn't represent an oppressive regime, then I don't know what to tell yo
As opposed to not doing something because a couple of hundred Republicans oppose it? Every time Republicans mention that the majority of Americans oppose the Health bill, I want to ask them if they ever polled anybody other than their constituents. Because, you know, those of us who actually like the bill think we ought to be counted as Americans as well.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Bipartisan ship means that the right-wing folks need to accept some of the left wing folks' ideas.
Bull. That's not bipartisanship. That's horse trading.
Bipartisanship would be the Dems not liking the way insurance companies ride roughshod over subscribers, and the Reps not liking the idea of the government taking over 1/6th of the economy, so they reach an agreement that answers both concerns. A law that would require insurance policies to match one of a few DHHS outline policies, or state clearly how they differ.
Dems are concerned about the huge cost of the tax liability and portability between jobs, and Reps are concerned about the lack of accountability. A viable compromise would be that all policies are taxed like normal income, raising necessary funds and removing the chain between insurance and a job.
In no way is bipartisanship a "you get one, I get one" game. That leads to the ridiculous robbing of the public purse and our grandchildren's inheritance that we see now.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Are you the guy who goes around moderating any post that has a hint of sympathy for the human condition "-1 offtopic", while making sure all the "YOU CAN'T TELL A BUSINESS WHAT TO DO, COMMIES" posts are moderated through the roof?
No, that's me. But you exaggerate a little bit; I would never use "all caps."
And the practice of giving multiple exemptions to a single request would have begun with the Obama administration?
Well, I guess when people worship a charlatan they will go to great extents to justify it.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
I would say the delay in getting the so called "Open Government" documents is more ironic than amusing.
The problem is there have been far too many overtures to bi-partisanship.
By that I suppose you mean those Democrats who have supported the Republican opposition to health care takeover (which reflects the majority opinion of the American people), since there have been no overtures to bipartisanship from the Democratic leadership.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Why do you hate atheists, pudge?
Why are you lying about me?
p>2) If you don't think 2,000 pages that nobody has read which rebuilds 17% of the US economy according to the whims of a couple hundred Democrats doesn't represent an oppressive regime, then I don't know what to tell you.
So a government is an "oppressive regime" any time it passes a long bill on an important topic that an unpopular political party doesn't like?
I've done some work with federal agencies and how they process FOIA requests:
A request for information under the FOIA can be granted, partially denied, or denied. If the request is granted, the exact records requested are returned unedited. If the request is denied, one or more reasons (exceptions) must be stated from a list of allowed exemptions. If a request is partially denied, one or more exemptions must be stated and what the requester receives back will either be a subset of what was asked for or will be redacted to remove sensitive information. For example, PIA (personally identifiable information - like SSNs, birth dates, medical records, etc.) is an exemption and is grounds for a partial denial, but it usually only means that this information will be redacted from the requested records.
So if you are looking at statistics (annual FOIA reports are required by law from every government entity and the reports themselves are either published or available via FOIA request themselves), you need to know the total number of new requests, the total number of requests held over from the previous fiscal year, the number of requests granted, the number partially denied, and the number totally denied. There are also individual statistics for denials and partial denials broken down by exemptions. There isn't anything on the annual report about how many exemptions were applied to individual requests - that would just have to be averaged out.
The Obama administration did encourage more release of records under the FOIA and a relaxing of exemptions. The idea was to assume that any record could be released unless an exemption prevented it. The previous directive was to presume that any record could not released and then try to justify it. If they couldn't justify denying it, they would grudgingly release it. The other thing that has been encouraged is pre-emptive release. For any request that is granted (no exemptions) there is no reason to not put that record on the agency's public web site to avoid processing any future requests for it. Or if there are certain types of records that can be released and that get requested often, go ahead and publish them. Theoretically this will reduce the number of FOIA requests processed, but I think it's probably too early to see a difference based on this policy.
-- stream of did I lock the front door consciousness
That's pretty thin evidence of non-transparency. They concentrate on FOIA requests, and they don't do a good job of that.
From the Google Version: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hI24fNqhDbP2mY1wZyUBRJRa_UqAD9EG54N80
- paragraph 2: Obama told agencies specifically not to use the "deliberate process" exemption so frequently
- paragraph 4: Obama was only president for 9 months of the period in question, with no breakout by quarter. I assume a bit of lag as the new administration asserts itself
- paragraph 6: refers to non-FOIA transparency - release of full White House visitor logs and more federal data online than before
- paragraphs 7 & 8: Obama, Emanuel and Bauer all claim to be trying to improve transparency
- paragraph 9: "nearly every one of the law's nine exemptions"? is that 7? 8? which ones were reduced?
- paragraph 10: more exemptions are being cited, but there are no numbers of how many or what percentage of requests were rejected in part or in full
- paragraph 11: the "Open Government Directive" (a good thing) mentioned in a negative context - that they're still waiting after 3 months. much further down we find out they've cut the backlog of requests down by nearly half so far (paragraph 22). how long were requests taking circa 2008?
- paragraph 21: some fuzzy numbers suggesting there's more transparency, but they're no more convincing as the figures suggesting the opposite (how many agencies increased full and partial requests?)
In short, the article's a mess of numbers that don't mean much. Perhaps the next directive could be to report all the real statistics for each agency monthly.
Have you seen what he's up against? The Democrats were never as obstructive to President Bush.
The problem is that Obama's main idea of change - bipartisanship - is the least productive way of making change
in America.
That is demonstratively false. Democrats fought bitterly against most of Bush's domestic initiatives, especially Social Security reform, and the big one, reform of Fannie and Freddie ("I just don't see what the problem is here" - Barney Frank).
They also filibustered on judges continously. As for bipartisanship, President Obama has been pretty clear that bipartisanship means knuckling under to the majority ("I won, didn't I?".
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
So you're saying the only way to be bi-partisan is to have no health care reform bill. That's the kind of bi-partisanship I'd expect from a Republican.
Blue-dog Democrats are just Republicans who got sick of the fact that Republicans are the party of doing jack shit and somehow still running up massive deficits. So yes, it is bi-partisanship to work with them.
Republicans have one platform - oppose Barrack Obama. Congratulations, they're doing a great job. When they look at their actual party platform and realize they've labeled everything in it as socialism, they're going to have a problem though.
I'm guessing you are a troll, but in the unlikely chance that you are not....
If this was purely an ideological debate, are you seriously suggesting that every single Republican in Congress has EXACTLY the same feelings on ALL the proposals made by Democrats?
Seriously? Are they clones? Pure copies somehow of each other? How many Republicans have voted for any bill Democrats have put forward? To suggest there is not an institutional obstructionism on the part of Republicans is either very blind or pure lies.
I'm so tired of Republicans acting all put-upon and oppressed. You honestly... HONESTLY.. suggest, that the Republican run Congress of the Bush years was somehow MORE bi-partisan than the leadership of this congress? What exactly did they give the democrats during those eight years? A middle finger and a shit-sandwich. That's what. Jesus, cry me a river Conservatives.
It is very hard to claim that someone is trying to work with someone else when they create the bill behind closed doors with sweetheart deals and then rush it to the floor for a vote before anyone can read the amended thing. On top of that when someone from the other party asks the bill to be read as part of the Senate rules (granted also as a stall tactic), the leader of the party breaks the rules in stopping it. You cannot break the rules of the Congress and still claim to be trying to play nice.
As I see it, the Democratic Party is hell-bent to shove this health-care bill down everyone's throat. The most amusing thing I saw in this process was during the meeting/lunch with the President one of the Republicans validly pointed out the fiscal flaws in the bill and the response was simply "Were not going to talk about that".
Voting them all out of office, now that's change I can believe in.
Editorial bias can be expressed just as much by selecting which articles to present as by actually writing those articles. Even ostensibly unbiased, "mere aggregation" right-wing sites use this effect to create in the mind of the reader a worldview conducive to supporting the right. They over-emphasize terrorism, fear, and silly fluff pieces. They immediately harp on and play up even the most minor of scandals, so long as they deal with left-leaning politicians. These sites de-emphasize economic news, subtle world politics, or reports that make the case for more progressive action.
These sites undoubtedly present a right-wing atmosphere, and do it using only unedited, individually-neutral news stories written by professionals as building blocks. In a way, it's a far more effective form of propaganda than distributing opinion pieces: the easy defense is "we're just reporting the news", and someone relying heavily on one of these sites for news might be more receptive to the propaganda because the articles don't trigger his bullshit sensors the same way an op-ed would.
Why do you hate atheists, pudge?
To me, that link looks like he was simply defending himself and his views from a broad, unbased, insulting generalization, and then being marked -1 Troll for it -- which lends enormous irony to the rest of your +4 flamebait post.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
God, the terrible and declining quality of Slashdot's community makes sense when one of the key people behind the site is himself a right-wing lunatic who beats off to authoritarianism and theocracy.
The quality is declining because the posts aren't being modded in the way you want?
Please explain...
Those are your precise words. So are these:
I'm not misrepresenting you in the slightest. You're an archetypal, callous, right-wing blowhard who sees failure as weakness, and life as being about strife, not cooperation and happiness. Your ideas are definitely, clearly, and verifiable wrong, and the medieval policies you advocate will lead to unfathomable human misery if enacted. You're the kind of man who gives America a bad name in the civilized world.
Oh, come on mods, flamebait? That was funny! And I say that as a conservative.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
The same old pattern repeats itself. Those who disagree with the numbers are quick to argue their fallibility. Plenty of rationalizations are provided to argue that these claims are untrue. It easy to dismiss something when it doesn't fit your worldview. At the other end we've got the people who openly embrace these claims and then will refer to them as gospel. Yet another bit of evidence to support your mindset.
I don't see why it's so hard to believe for some that this administration may actually be rejecting requests in greater numbers. Of course, it's meaningless because it isn't like the Bush administration was a pushover. It's very likely that the number of rejections would have gone up were he still serving as president.
The real problem I see is that there are still people out there so naive as to believe that politicians actually care about any of us. I don't understand how people can continue to be fiercely loyal to either republicans or democrats. There certainly must be politicians out there who care, but you'll find those guys are small-time unknowns who have no say in the fundamental workings of this country. And they'll never be in a position of influence because they wont play the game. The big players are all looking out for themselves and the special interests they represent.
Sure, but remember. That's your fault. You've created a party and media empire that only exists to say everything Democrats do is wrong. The only way to get anything done is not to tell Republicans about it. Ball's in your court. Start acting like adults and you'll be treated like them.
Democrats already treat you far better than you deserve.
Yeah, I know it's fucking insane to try to get some work done. We've been trying to pass this bill since the first day of the Obama administration. I think at the one year mark is a perfectly acceptable point to say you're gathered enough input from obstructionists, and you're done listening to what they have to say.
And don't give me this "breaking procedural rules" bullshit. Your party is the party of breaking procedural rules and rewriting the entire congressional rule book anytime you are in power. Turn-about's fair play.
It sounds like Obama's administration already figured out the process better than Bush's. The numbers are only going to increase as the years go by. After all, a lack of understanding in this system would lead to more information being released, not more withheld.
Those are your precise words.
Correct. However, you used those as evidence that I "hate atheists." Despite the fact that they don't say such a thing, either implicitly or explicitly.
So, why are you lying about me? Or are you just that stupid?
So are these
Only some of them (most of them are not mine, in fact). You quoted ... poorly.
I'm not misrepresenting you in the slightest.
When you said I hate atheists, you downright LIED about me.
You're an archetypal, callous, right-wing blowhard who sees failure as weakness, and life as being about strife, not cooperation and happiness.
False on all counts, except that I am a right-wing blowhard. I am certainly not archetypal, nor remotely callous. Strength can only be gained through failure. Life IS about strife, of course, but also about cooperation and happiness.
However, nothing I said demonstrates callousness, nor a lack of cooperation. You -- pathetically -- apparently believe that if I am against government forcing us to do something, I am therefore against it being done. This fallacy is old and stupid, but many people still cling to it.
Your ideas are definitely, clearly, and verifiable wrong
False. Don't be an idiot.
and the medieval policies you advocate
I have no such policies. You're lying again.
will lead to unfathomable human misery if enacted
That's ridiculous on the face of it. The policies I advocate would, at worst, return us to a time around the 1950s, where few people had insurance, and most everyone's medical needs were met. If you call that "unfathomable human misery" then you're just plain stupid.
You're the kind of man who gives America a bad name in the civilized world.
Any "world" that considers liberty a bad thing isn't very civilized.
Would you also be comfortable with returning to 1950s tax rates, unionization levels, life expectancies, and prescription drug advertising rules?
Well I'm glad you feel that way. Personally, I trusted Bush a whole lot more that Obama, but that's the beauty of this country. Everyone has a right to thier own opinion. I'll agree with you on this though, there are times when it is not in our best interests to be fully transparent. For instance, where strategic military operations are taking place, or whether or not a particular strategy is working. It's best to keep your enemies guessing. However, when it comes to things like 2 TRILLION $$$ for a domestic economic recovery plan and bank bailouts rammed through in the dead of night I'd like very much to know where that's going and why it hasn't really improved our situation. Yes unemployment is fluctuating, but unemployment doesn't take into consideration those who have been unemployed for so long that they no longer qualify for unemployment. Supposedly the banks are on solid footing now (many institutions handing out bonuses), but it's still like pulling teeth to get a loan. Those are things that should be transparent, and we as Americans ought to be demanding answers.
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
...get over it.
Interestingly, social psychology studies have demonstrated atheists are in fact quite similar to the strongly religious.
The internationally famous Institute of the Passive Voice has also demonstrated that both atheists and the strongly religious combine glucose with oxygen to produce ATP!
Your comment is vague and practically worthless. Care to substantiate it, or even better, cite a source?
This makes no sense: it uses the frequency of use of the (non-security) "deliberative process" exemption as a supposed example of the Obama administration using "security provisions" more frequently than Bush's did. It clearly isn't an example of that, since the deliberative process exemption isn't a security provision.
It's like saying "John Doe owns more pickup trucks than Bob Smith. For instance, John Doe owns 36 Toyota Corollas, while Bob Smith only owns 24."
He's not lying
False.
in that post series you do appear to hate atheists
False.
When I judge a site for bias, I like to look at the comments sections. BreitBart's blogspam site seems to only swing one way.
Blar.
I've identified your problem:
You forgot to add "abracadabra" to the end of your post.
By that I suppose you mean those Democrats who have supported the Republican opposition to health care takeover (which reflects the majority opinion of the American people), since there have been no overtures to bipartisanship from the Democratic leadership.
The polling on the bill has moderated a great deal in recent weeks as Obama has come out and started fighting for the bill. A number of polls now show the public fairly evenly balanced between opposing and supporting the bill.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
(Johnson)It's time someone had the courage to stand up and say: "I'm against those things that everybody hates
(Jackson)Now I respect my opponent. I think he's a good man but, quite frankly, I agree with everything he just said!
(Fry)These are the candidates? They sound like clones. Wait a minute. They are clones!
(Leela)Don't let their identical DNA fool you. They differ on some key issues.
(Johnson)I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far.
(Jackson)And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough!
(Fry)If I were registered to vote, I send these clowns a message by staying home on election day and dressing up like a clown.
I don't have to read it. A government takeover of healthcare is wrong on its face.
And one of the main reasons is that it requires laws thousands of pages long that nobody can possibly understand.
As opposed to all of the other bills that go through Congress every year? Every interest group (commercial, union, or private) has a huge number of lobbyists and legislative specialists who pore over every bill that goes through congress.
Believe me, they have read this bill.
And government isn't "taking over" healthcare. They are not privatizing the health care market, they are setting up conditions to allow a real market in individual / small business insurance to exist.
Mitt Romney did something similar with MassachusettsCare, and the Republicans proposed something similar in opposition to the Clinton plan back in 1994.
Many in the Republican party act as if any Democratic initiative is the end of the republic and must be blocked, even if they do worse themselves when in power.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
"Bipartisanship" is a word used by the party in power so they can blame the minority when they're unable to move their agenda along. It's the minority that doesn't want to compromise or whatever.
Or... worse... it's a word used to describe the worst assfucking you can get in this country. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGlVhss6Gr4
I've identified your problem
False.
Because Bush and Gore were the same. Yeah right. What a load.
No, Cheney and Lieberman are the same. Actually, Lieberman's worse.. Bush and Gore are sock puppets.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Here... lemme remove the unnecessary part of your sentence:
All politicians are 'authoritarian.'
There we go!
Excuse me, when George W. Bush had Teddy Kennedy write the No Child Left Behind fiasco (which Bush at the time considered one of his "signature" pieces of legislature), the Republicans had a majority in both houses of Congress. Which one of Obama's "signature" pieces of legislation did he ask a Republican to write? For that matter, which piece of legislation did Obama ask for Republican input on? Actually ask, not just do so in a press conference but in the actual legislative process.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Really? I haven't seen any reports of support for the bill exceeding 36% or opposition below 46%.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Oh, I dunno... for a guy who practices Alinskyite tactics, attacking someone for no other reason than blind bigotry and playing left wing crusader you seem to think this still IS the 1950s... or at least the 1920's in Stalinist Russia.
before you keep yelling about Skyrocketing budget deficits you may want to see what the CBO has to say about (you know, people that actually know a little about the subject). They are saying it will save money. That should be good news to any fiscal conservative
nice.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
Oily taint. That is all.
actually i'd prefer pre-FDA, pre drug prohibition (which was sold using race baiting tactics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Narcotics_Tax_Act, which are certainly not claimed ideals of the political left...)
1950's tax rates were only necessary to pay off the war debt, something we've no concern for these days... simply have the Fed put a few more trillion in the federal account from the bit bucket.
1950's unionization levels were higher than today in part because there was a legitimate need for the unions with respect to protecting workers' human rights. today the largest union sector is state and local employees, hardly an underprivileged class.
1950's life expectancies were fine. the major improvement in life expectancies came about with the introduction of antibiotics and sanitation. growth in life expectancy in the last decade or three has been anemic at best despite the ever-growing share of GDP expended on it.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html
so yes, lets put the civil rights act into the constitution where it belongs, clean up a few other things to make our laws and constitution internally consistent, and return to the fiscal responsibility of the past. thank you very much.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
"That should be good news to any fiscal conservative"
Yeah, but all the fiscal conservatives are Democrats.
You don't like right wingers? Fine. I don't hold that against you. However, what I do resent is the fact you're so full of piss and vinegar and placing people beneath you of those you disagree with. I Sir, I proudly salute you the middle finger!
Life is not for the lazy.
He would also be very comfortable with "separate but equal". He wants the right to practice racial discrimination. He calls it "rights of association".
Yes, that is fundamental to liberty.
I would not go to any place of business that racially discriminated, but everyone has that right. The government takes away that right. There's a fine argument to be made that this was necessary due to the government-backed racial discrimination (including slavery, of course) that infected our nation for many years (i.e., private race discrimination is heightened in both quantity and effect because of government actions), so I am not looking to overturn this policy any time soon. But true liberty is a fine goal to have, no?
Interestingly, social psychology studies have demonstrated atheists are in fact quite similar to the strongly religious.
I doubt it. What is likely shown is that zealots of ALL kinds share such common characteristics. Someone is a "personal atheist" who isn't trying to beat up people who disagree with him, is very different from the people that discussion was about: atheists who are trying to stick Christians' nose in poop.
The only truism regarding types of people and characteristics is that some people suck, and some people suck less, and it's entirely regardless of what beliefs or principles they have.
Says the user that posted AC.
Gitmo? Still open.
Iraq? Still there.
Transparent? Health care negotiations behind closed doors.
Wire taps under the patriot act? Not discontinued under Obama http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/06/obama_doj_seeks_dismissal_wiretap_lawsuit/
Who's worse? The person that initiates this stuff, or the person who runs a political campaign railing against this stuff, then embraces it once elected? I respectfully suggest that you pull your head out of your ass, or is it up Obama's ass? Oh, that's right. You posted AC and will never read this. Wimp.
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
I hope you like your change.
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
I'm sure that many Federal judge appointees would like to parley with you about your opinion.
Perhaps you should rethink your statement.
On the face of it, this has been the most partisan move that we've seen in politics in a long time. It's to the point where Dems are refusing to listen to their own voters.
Also, in case you hadn't noticed, Dems had a super-majority in both Houses when this crapfest was thrown up. So the blockade consists of other Dems. This is still the case in the House.
In other words, he didn't know what he was talking about and he campaigned on vaporware. Why is no one at all in the MSM asking these questions. You can bet you ass that if Bush made those types of promises and was elected and didn't deliver CNN would have crawled up his ass with a microscope.
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
What prescription drugs in the 50's? Aspirin? Polio vaccine?
Different times, different lives - Impossible to compare. I agree with you I wouldn't want to be dropped off in the 1950's tomorrow, but prescription drug advertising rules is a pretty big stretch, considering there virtually weren't any that anyone took on a regular basis.
Of course, there might be something good about the lack of prescription drugs back then, too... how many 60+ year old ass-hats are pumping up their penises on Viagra for sex with their third 20-something third-wifey today?
Progress or just different? I'm not judging. Just saying, half a century ago is difficult to compare to, in any society that's changed as much as ours has.
+++OK ATH
"De spits" has a weekly column "typish amerikaans" which is dutch for "americans are silly and fat". (Oh okay, it means "typically american", but you know silly is implied and fat is just a given)
Today it was about the government of Hawaii getting sick of the constant requests for the birth certificate of Obama by nutters (aka republicans) who want to prove he wasn't born in the US and therefor can't be president. I say that since he seems to have half a brain and a waist, that already proves he is not a true American, but apparently they need more.
Would the denial of such a request be counted? So how many of these requests are legit to begin with?
A request for the documents about torture of foreign nationals is a bit different then wanting the files on the UFO's being kept at area 51.
Not that I think Obama is all that different from the previous guys. Governments all over the world are having a real problem with the increased demands of openness by its citizens. But I also know that figures like this can be very easily manipulated.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Sure, but remember. That's your fault. You've created a party and media empire that only exists to say everything Democrats do is wrong. The only way to get anything done is not to tell Republicans about it. Ball's in your court. Start acting like adults and you'll be treated like them.
Democrats already treat you far better than you deserve.
Yeah, I know it's fucking insane to try to get some work done. We've been trying to pass this bill since the first day of the Obama administration. I think at the one year mark is a perfectly acceptable point to say you're gathered enough input from obstructionists, and you're done listening to what they have to say.
And don't give me this "breaking procedural rules" bullshit. Your party is the party of breaking procedural rules and rewriting the entire congressional rule book anytime you are in power. Turn-about's fair play.
Um, first off I am not a Republican and never would want to be considered one (nor am I Democrat). Both parties are corrupt and my opinion need to be challenged by a strong third party.
Secondly, last time I checked both parties have their set of media outlets firmly in their own pockets. As I have said elsewhere, it is sad that the last place I find semi-unbiased news coverage is on NPR.
Finally, do you realize how much you sound like a three-year old when you make a claim like your last paragraph? Just because someone else is willing to stoop to the lowest level doesn't mean that you hop right into the gutter with them. But that said neither party is really in a position to claim the moral high-ground.
One extra note, I don't recall the Republicans ever telling the public that the procedure would be televised, open and not behind closed doors.
Voting them all out of office, now that's change I can believe in.
As opposed to not doing something because a couple of hundred Republicans oppose it?
That statement is both false and disingenuous.
It's false because Republicans have proposed plans to solve healthcare concerns as they were stated by Democrats. They've been completely ignored, despite protestations by Democrats to the contrary.
It's disingenuous because there are plenty more than "a couple hundred Republicans" that oppose the bills proposed so far. Like the majority of the nation. Somewhere around ~70% want Congress to start over on healthcare. Pelosi and Reid can't even get their supermajority to pass healthcare, and they are now seriously considering using semantic sophistry to "deem" something into existence that is a fiction and seems clearly unconstitutional on its' face.
After this performance, I can understand Progressives and Democrats being angry and frustrated. Nobody wants what they're selling, and on top of it their leaderships' decision to double-down and do absolutely *anything* to pass this legislative bloatware against the wishes of the vast majority of Americans will nearly guarantee the Democrats won't be able to get a dog-catcher elected or re-elected for decades.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I am not shocked. While I'm glad he won (considering the terrifying alernative), any happy illusions I had about Obama went out the window when he voted (while still in the Senate) to give AT&T a free pass for willingly breaking the law when asked to by the NSA. He chose the issue over what was right and continues to do so on virtually every other issue as well. The decline and fall continues apace.
This is meaningless without knowing the number of of actual requests.
Which they don’t know. Or else they would have used percentages for the amount of denied requests.
So I think this is deliberate.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
How is that whole Hopey Changey thing working for you now?
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
All we've been talking about is media outlets. Does nobody care about the rise of FoIA rejections under Obama?
FTFY.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Anybody with an ounce of common sense wants the shit sandwich that 0bama, Pelosi, and Reid are trying to jam down our throats to fail. Socialism has failed everywhere it's been tried. When will regressives get it through their thick skulls that it's not that the right people haven't tried to implement socialism, but that socialism itself is an awful idea that belongs on the ashheap of history?
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
You Republicans have got to be the fucking dumbest group of knuckle-draggers to ever walk the earth. It's no wonder that anyone with half a brain calls themselves independent.
1) THERE IS NO SOCIALISM IN THE CURRENT HEALTH CARE BILL. THERE HASN'T BEEN ANYTHING RESEMBLING SOCIALISM IN THE HEALTHCARE BILL FOR ALMOST A YEAR. Note, I've used all caps because you guys listen to people like Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh, so I figure you need it in shouting form to get through your thick-ass skulls. Liberals want it, but it's not there. There is no socialism. No public option. Nada. Just free market capitalism with a gentle hand from the government. A very, very gentle hand.
2) When you say Socialism has failed everywhere it's been tried, I'd like to point you at this wikipedia article listing the top 10 economies in the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
Of those, 8 are varying degrees of socialist and 1 is communist. Exactly how is that failing?
You use that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means. There's not much freedom, for instance, in being forced to either purchase an approved coverage plan (which probably includes features I'd rather not pay for) or pay massive fines at tax time. There's not much freedom in not being able to alter your current plan (if you have one) if those changes don't comply with what the nanny-state government dictates that you shall have.
On more than one occasion, I've opted to not carry any health-insurance coverage. Analysis of the costs vs. the benefits didn't work in its favor. The couple of times I ended up needing something, I paid $50 at the urgent-care clinic and another $50 or so at the nearest pharmacy to get the resulting prescription filled. You, 0bama, Reid, Pelosi, and the rest of your ilk would deny people that choice. Who the frak are you to make those sorts of decisions for me? Die in a fire.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
"free market capitalism"
Free market capitalism has nothing to do with your rights. It's an economic system. As such under the new plan you'll still be able to choose from a variety of plans, and in fact will have more choice since insurance companies will be able to sell across state lines. Currently most of America has only 2 health plans to choose from. Under the plan they'll have more. That's a more open market with more choice. I'm in favor of socialism. If it was a socialist plan, I'd call it a socialist plan even if Republicans proposed it. I can't help it that you have to call everything Democrats propose socialism. I've heard morons in your party call the tort-reform plans in the bill socialism too. It doesn't make it so.
"Who the frak are you to make those sorts of decisions for me?"
A responsible person who carries health insurance and foots the bill when people like you end up in the emergency room. So yeah, I have no problem with you paying your bill at the end of the year if you choose not to carry health insurance. I either want socialism, or a system where dickheads like you pay your fair share. I'm fine with either.
Bush killed the economy and started two wars. Obama has to fix it and win them..
With mandates for particular types of coverage to be included, it's still less choice than you have now. As for selling across state lines, I have no problem with that. Too bad most of you libs do, including the House leadership.
That's one of the most asinine assertions I've ever heard. The only people opposed to tort reform are the scumbag ambulance chasers who'd be put out of business by it. Here's a newsflash for you: they're mostly Democrats, which is why it's not in either of the bills under consideration.
You must've missed the part where I said I paid my own bills at the urgent-care clinic (which, BTW, was not the local ER) and the pharmacy. Want to talk about responsibility again, asswipe? Doctors and pharmacists still take money directly from patients. It's apparently become rather uncommon, but they don't care too much how they get paid so long as they do get paid.
FWIW, I'm currently paying for PPO coverage arranged by my employer. It's my choice to do so. At this point, it's cheap enough to be a might-as-well type of purchase. Still, I have the choice to purchase it or not. Fascists like you would deny me that choice.
Scratch a liberal, find a fascist. Here's a better idea: since you hate freedom so much and prefer big-nanny government, why don't you quit trying to ruin my country and go move somewhere else that you liberal fascists have already ruined?
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Quoting op-eds in the Washington Post? Really? Op-eds? Excuse me while I go to the Daily Show site and find some rebuttals.
There's tort reform in the bill. Just because all the conservative op-eds are spinning it as "not real tort reform" doesn't make it so. You're picking nits. When the states all have their own standards you guys bitch that it's too confusing for business. When the federal government sets a standard you guys bitch that it's impeding on the rights of states to do what's best for them. You didn't say this bill doesn't have the tort reform program I like which is a, b, and c. You said there's no tort reform in the bill. Which is patently false.
"You must've missed the part where I said I paid my own bills at the urgent-care clinic"
No, I missed the part where you said you had a couple of hundred thousand dollars on hand in case you'd had to go to the hospital rather than the urgent care clinic. You're lucky. Not responsible.
You do realize that saying things like "Scratch a liberal, find a fascist" just proves to the world that you're an ignoramus who is easily lead by talk radio. You're probably against medicaid cuts too...
George Bush did that? He once asked a single Democrat to formulate a bill? In eight years? Wow, he's a friggin peacemaker in the vein of Jesus himself. And Obama hasn't asked Republicans in on one in the ENTIRE 14 months he's been in office? Man, screw that guy, he must just be an asshole.
You said that the Republican Congress was not more bipartisan than the current Democratic Congress. One is more than zero. So, yes it was more bipartisan. Actually I believe that there were several other major bills with Democrat involvement but it isn't worth my time to research it.
If Obama has accepted Republican contributions to any of his major legislative initiatives please enlighten me. No Child Left Behind was in the first 14 months of the Bush Administration so it is comparable.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Blue-dog Democrats are Democrats who know they can't get elected from their district if they show their true colors.
The Republican Party has suggested several steps to reform the healthcare system, but the Democratic leadership doesn't like them because they don't expand the power of the federal government.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
No they haven't. The Republican Party has suggested a few bullet points in various op-eds. That's not a plan.
Mostly they've suggest everyone move to HSAs. That's not reform. It's a choice we have today, and the free market has overwhelmingly rejected HSAs for pretty much everyone who's not in the top 20% of household earners in the US.
They have proposed several bills, just most of the press and the Democratic leadership have ignored them. No, it's not a "plan", it is focused solutions to address specific problems. The Democrats don't want that because if those ideas worked, they would lose their excuse for a major expansion of the federal government.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Oddly enough, our system doesn't work by suggesting bills to the press. You don't get points for not submitting a bill. If they had submitted a bill and Democrats had ignored it or voted it down I might think you had a point.
I've already addressed these "focused solutions" in depth elsewhere on Slasdot. But basically from what I can figure out from reading conservative op-eds it's made up of:
1) Things that people can already do and that suggesting is kind of silly (HSAs)
2) Things that have already been done at the state level and proven ineffective at controlling costs in a meaningful way (Tort Reform)
3) Things that no one in their right mind would agree to (investing health care savings in the stock market)
You just have some politicians bitching that the plan they didn't submit has been ignored. I'd ignore that kind of behavior too.
They have submitted bills, just because the Democrats bottled them up in committee and the prss has for the most part ignored them doesn't mean they weren't submitted.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Oh you're correct. I just went and looked them up. The reason they've been ignored is that they're composed of:
1) Points that have been included in the health care bill currently under consideration. I don't know how much these bills were taken into consideration when crafting the legislation, but the points are in both.
2) Junk points that are for scoring points with constituents and that never would be included in a bill that makes it to the floor in a Democratic congress (and that probably wouldn't have made it to the floor in a Republican congress).
Points that have been included in the health care bill currently under consideration.
If they are acceptable to put into the monstrosity, why not just pass them separately? Obviously, they would be acceptable to the Republicans and to the Democrats since the Democrats put them into the bill that the American people have resoundingly expressed their opposition to. Why not pass the stuff that everybody agrees on and get back to the other stuff later?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Because that's not how Congress works. Not now, not ever in the past.
Well, then you have no gripe against the Republicans opposing the bill. While there are things in there they are willing to support, the things they are opposed to are bad enough that the stuff they can support fails to make up for it.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I have no gripe with them opposing the bill on principal. But they claim it's socialism and that there's no bipartisanship and both of those statements are patently false.