First executive orders!

[blackangst1]

Watching live now will post link when I find it (or if anyone else gets it first.

GOOD ON HIM! This is great first step. Im encouraged by continual use of transperancy in his speeches.

edit: here's a link: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s...=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

 

[OCGuy]

Yay for legislation coming from the executive branch with no oversight!

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Watching live now will post link when I find it (or if anyone else gets it first.

GOOD ON HIM! This is great first step. Im encouraged by continual use of transperancy in his speeches.

In other news there has been a spike in the sale of envelopes and an increase in the demand for hard currency in the DC area.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Yay for legislation coming from the executive branch with no oversight!

I don't know how you could be stupid enough to see either of these things as a negative.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Yay for legislation coming from the executive branch with no oversight!

I don't know how you could be stupid enough to see either of these things as a negative.

You might want to read it again.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Watching live now will post link when I find it (or if anyone else gets it first.

GOOD ON HIM! This is great first step. Im encouraged by continual use of transperancy in his speeches.

edit: here's a link: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s...=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

:thumbsup: Lets hope there is some follow through regarding this.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Yay for legislation coming from the executive branch with no oversight!

Heh this is his staff, he sets the wages for these people.

Now while this sounds promising it is more symbolic than anything. These are new staff anyways. I would have been more impressed if he didnt hire what, 1700 staff members? Why the hell does the president of the united states need 1700 staff members?

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Yay for legislation coming from the executive branch with no oversight!

The White House Staff has never had salaries budgeted by Congress. Congress only allocates money for the executive to employ the White House staff. It's up to the executive to determine how the money gets used in its own budget.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Yay for legislation coming from the executive branch with no oversight!

Heh this is his staff, he sets the wages for these people.

Now while this sounds promising it is more symbolic than anything. These are new staff anyways. I would have been more impressed if he didnt hire what, 1700 staff members? Why the hell does the president of the united states need 1700 staff members?

To run the most powerful country on Earth? I dunno.. just one reason I came up with there are probably others.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Yay for legislation coming from the executive branch with no oversight!

Heh this is his staff, he sets the wages for these people.

Now while this sounds promising it is more symbolic than anything. These are new staff anyways. I would have been more impressed if he didnt hire what, 1700 staff members? Why the hell does the president of the united states need 1700 staff members?

To run the most powerful country on Earth? I dunno.. just one reason I came up with there are probably others.

...while in a state of a multi tiered crisis on top of that? Ya, nothing there that merits a large staff to ensure that lots of work gets done at once.


Genx87, I do very much agree with you about the symbolism part though.

 

[heyheybooboo]

The two-year lobby ban is probably the best you could hope for ...

Streamlining and improving FOIA is always a good thang.

I could not care less about lobbyist gifts as long as they are fully disclosed. It's the lobbyist/special interest fundraisers we need to kibosh ...

edit --- As far as staff one of the biggest issues with Bush was his organizational management and inter-agency follow-through. If you set a policy at State you need staff to follow up at other agencies to work though the inherent conflicts that develop

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Yay for legislation coming from the executive branch with no oversight!

Heh this is his staff, he sets the wages for these people.

Now while this sounds promising it is more symbolic than anything. These are new staff anyways. I would have been more impressed if he didnt hire what, 1700 staff members? Why the hell does the president of the united states need 1700 staff members?

Huh... during a time of rising unemployment, our president has created 1,700 jobs... What a bastard.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Yay for legislation coming from the executive branch with no oversight!

Heh this is his staff, he sets the wages for these people.

Now while this sounds promising it is more symbolic than anything. These are new staff anyways. I would have been more impressed if he didnt hire what, 1700 staff members? Why the hell does the president of the united states need 1700 staff members?

What were their wages before the freeze? Above market? If so, the freeze is just useless political garbage.

 

[frostedflakes]

I can't imagine it making a significant difference in the budget, but I agree that it's a nice symbolic gesture. And of course good to hear about more transparency and less special interests in govt.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Yay for legislation coming from the executive branch with no oversight!

Heh this is his staff, he sets the wages for these people.

Now while this sounds promising it is more symbolic than anything. These are new staff anyways. I would have been more impressed if he didnt hire what, 1700 staff members? Why the hell does the president of the united states need 1700 staff members?

What were their wages before the freeze? Above market? If so, the freeze is just useless political garbage.

Yeah...because saving some money is worse than saving none at all.

I swear it is people like you who at times make me ashamed to be a Republican.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Yay for legislation coming from the executive branch with no oversight!

Heh this is his staff, he sets the wages for these people.

Now while this sounds promising it is more symbolic than anything. These are new staff anyways. I would have been more impressed if he didnt hire what, 1700 staff members? Why the hell does the president of the united states need 1700 staff members?

What were their wages before the freeze? Above market? If so, the freeze is just useless political garbage.

Yeah...because saving some money is worse than saving none at all.

I swear it is people like you who at times make me ashamed to be a Republican.

wtf? what if the wages were already reflective of a premium and he had no intention of giving raises anyway? Then what does this executive order mean? absolutely nothing.

I'm not saying that's the case, but it's a possibility, especially because he has no reason to piss off his staff that fucking got him elected.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Yay for legislation coming from the executive branch with no oversight!

Heh this is his staff, he sets the wages for these people.

Now while this sounds promising it is more symbolic than anything. These are new staff anyways. I would have been more impressed if he didnt hire what, 1700 staff members? Why the hell does the president of the united states need 1700 staff members?

Huh... during a time of rising unemployment, our president has created 1,700 jobs... What a bastard.

These people were employed before hand. You think these people were at the homeless shelter or something?

That said I wont derail this thread much on the subject of staff size. But it is an example of our govt's issues with regard to bloat. Looking at some of the staff recently appointed. Does the first lady need a press and deputy press secretary?

 

[alchemize]

While purely symbolic, this is exactly the kind of symbolism we need. The government can't be bribed and will control costs.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Yay for legislation coming from the executive branch with no oversight!

Heh this is his staff, he sets the wages for these people.

Now while this sounds promising it is more symbolic than anything. These are new staff anyways. I would have been more impressed if he didnt hire what, 1700 staff members? Why the hell does the president of the united states need 1700 staff members?

To run the most powerful country on Earth? I dunno.. just one reason I came up with there are probably others.

Does Obama have a bigger staff than Bush?

Wait, that didn't come out right.

btw, as the article says, the salary freeze only applies to a small sub-set of employees so it only affects @ 100 people. I do like the implementation of the ethics clauses though. Even if it is symbolic it still sends a message to lobbyists in DC.

Good job Obama. Keep it up. :thumbsup:

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Yay for legislation coming from the executive branch with no oversight!

I don't know how you could be stupid enough to see either of these things as a negative.

Don't mind Oc, he's a total hack.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Does the first lady need a press and deputy press secretary?

I don't know. Do you think there isn't a need for both and if you do why is that?

 

[WackyDan]

"Families are tightening their belts, and so should Washington," said the new president

Then he should apply that same principle to federal spending. His comment is somewhat counter to what he already promising to do in increasing spending and social programs.

The lobbiest changes/rules are great... but please get the house and senate to abide by the same rules.

 

[Deeko]

All looks good to me.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Yay for legislation coming from the executive branch with no oversight!

Heh this is his staff, he sets the wages for these people.

Now while this sounds promising it is more symbolic than anything. These are new staff anyways. I would have been more impressed if he didnt hire what, 1700 staff members? Why the hell does the president of the united states need 1700 staff members?

Huh... during a time of rising unemployment, our president has created 1,700 jobs... What a bastard.

These people were employed before hand. You think these people were at the homeless shelter or something?

That said I wont derail this thread much on the subject of staff size. But it is an example of our govt's issues with regard to bloat. Looking at some of the staff recently appointed. Does the first lady need a press and deputy press secretary?

Uh, yes. First ladies generally promote various agendas (such as volunteerism, cancer research etc.) You need press secretaries to, like, work with the press and stuff. It's not like Michelle's going to just sit around baking cookies or doing laundry all day.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Yay for legislation coming from the executive branch with no oversight!

Heh this is his staff, he sets the wages for these people.

Now while this sounds promising it is more symbolic than anything. These are new staff anyways. I would have been more impressed if he didnt hire what, 1700 staff members? Why the hell does the president of the united states need 1700 staff members?

To run the most powerful country on Earth? I dunno.. just one reason I came up with there are probably others.

Am I the only one who is confused when people talk about how the president "runs the country?"

If the president runs the country, why have a legislative branch?