 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Don Firth Date: 21 Mar 09 - 02:05 AM He is addressing the country's serious economic problems, Doug. He is "cavorting" where the problems are, not just sitting in the Oval Office picking his nose. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: DougR Date: 21 Mar 09 - 01:52 AM Amos: at what point will you, and your fellow travelers, accept the fact that GWB is no longer president? Your guy occupies that position now. Actually, I've about come to the conclusion that Obama, in fact, is Not the president of the U.S. Oh, he was elected alright, but I suspect that he is only the front guy for Rohm Emanuel and his crew in the White House. He cavorts around the country conducting "community meetings" when, if he is really acting as president, should be back in Washington addressing the country's serious economic problems. He is like Frank Morgan in the Wizard of Oz. Lots of talk and glad handing but really is just a bag of wind. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 21 Mar 09 - 01:29 AM Sawz: WOuld you see if you can find out what expenditures have caused this remarkable upside-down fiscal accomplishment? A |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 20 Mar 09 - 11:47 PM Reuters US ECONomy Congressional Budget Ooffice's 2009 Outlook Worsens Sees 1.5% GDP Drop Washington, Mar 20 2009 The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) today offered a new, bleaker economic outlook for the US this year that sees a 1.5% drop in nominal GDP, worse than the 0.4% decline for 2009 it predicted in January. However, CBO also sees 3.8% growth in 2010 and 4.5% growth 2011, better than the 2.5% growth it predicted for 2010 earlier this year. CBO did say in its latest economic and budget outlook that while the economy will likely deteriorate 'for some time,' efforts by the Fed and Treasury to stimulate the economy 'are projected to help end the recession in the fall of 2009. But CBO's new estimate puts unemployment at 9.4% by the end of this year and early 2010, and says unemployment will remain above 7.0% through 2011. That's worse than CBO's January estimate for 2009 unemployment of 8.3%, and its 2010 estimate of 9.0%. CBO mirrored the Obama Administration's budget deficit estimates for 2009 ($1.7 trllion) and 2010 ($1.1 trllion). But CBO said it thinks Obama's various plans to offer huge amounts of fiscal stimulus to the economy would add $2.3 trllion more to the budget deficit from 2010 to 2019 than the administration predicts. 'The differences arise largely because of differing projections of baseline revenues and outlays,' CBO said. The administration is expecting the budget deficit to total $7.0 trllion from 2010 to 2019, but CBO is expecting a total deficit of $9.27 trllion. |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 20 Mar 09 - 11:38 PM You found that hard to understand???? Figures! |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 20 Mar 09 - 11:34 PM You should wipe the froth off your lips before you post, GfS. It makes you hard to understand. A |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 20 Mar 09 - 11:31 PM Most incompetent band of fools on the planet!!! Dangerous too, because of their idiotic ideologies! |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 20 Mar 09 - 03:42 PM He's not cavorting, Doug. HE was finding out about alternative-energy transport, among other things, and urging people to understand what needs to get done and how he intends to get it done. At least he wasn't cutting brush in his vacation cottage. Oh, and we already swamped Bush's Administration with criticism, for (among other sins) creating an atmosphere of unregulated greed which fomented this crisis. Tll ya what, though. Why'n'cha go shopping to do your part to end the collapse of world finance? A |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: DougR Date: 20 Mar 09 - 02:06 PM Anybody read the presidential approval ratings lately. Definitely headed South. I knew the majority of U.S. citizens were not as gullible as was demonstrated at the November election. The country is facing he most serious economic challenge it probably has ever faced, and where is our fearless leader? Out on the in California cavorting with Arnold and jawing with Jay. Can anyone imagine the anger of most posters on this thread had Bush done the same thing? Unimaginable. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 20 Mar 09 - 12:04 PM " In times like these, you'd expect prudent leaders to prepare for the worst. After all, the pessimists have recently been vindicated by events. But that's apparently too painful to think about. In normal times, leaders like to focus on the short term at the expense of the long term. But now the short term is really confusing, so leaders take refuge in projects that are years or decades away. The president of the United States has decided to address this crisis while simultaneously tackling the four most complicated problems facing the nation: health care, energy, immigration and education. Why he has not also decided to spend his evenings mastering quantum mechanics and discovering the origins of consciousness is beyond me. The results of this overload are evident on Capitol Hill. The banking plan is incomplete, and there is zero political will to pay for it. The president's budget is being nibbled to death. The revenue ideas are dying one by one, while the spending ideas expand. By the latest estimate, the health care approach will cost $1.5 trillion over 10 years and the national debt will at least double, while the Chinese publicly complain about picking up the tab. The Obama administration is at least distracted by important things. The Washington political class has spent the past week going into made-for-TV hysterics over $165 million in A.I.G. bonuses. We're in the middle of a multitrillion-dollar crisis, and our political masters — always willing to throw themselves into any issue that is understandable on cable television — have decided to risk destroying the entire bank-rescue plan because of bonuses that account for 0.001 percent of the annual G.D.P." David Brooks, NYT |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Mar 09 - 06:45 AM "Far from being impulsive on Iran, the administration has sent mixed signals about its sense of urgency. The International Atomic Energy Agency recently concluded that Iran has sufficient stockpiles of low-enriched uranium -- the most difficult part of the enrichment cycle -- to build a nuclear weapon after a short period of further enrichment. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen, says he believes that Iran is "on a path to develop nuclear weapons." At the same time, Defense Secretary Robert Gates contends, "They're not close to a weapon at this point" and asserts that the "barrier" for military action against Iran is the question "Are we going to be attacked here at home?" -- which doesn't offer much consolation to Israel or America's Arab friends. At this point, the administration is combining a policy of caution with a message of confusion. And it does not seem likely to persuade or intimidate." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/17/AR2009031702938.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 17 Mar 09 - 02:36 PM No, no, of course it doesn't. SHoot off your mouth whenever you feel like it. You're among friends. A |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Mar 09 - 12:45 PM You may even be right. But that does not mean I should not find things that he has done or not done that can be criticised- or applauded, when I agree with them. |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 17 Mar 09 - 12:40 PM I am open to serious remarks about Obama, including suggestions for ways he could do things better. Neither Bush nor Obama deserve unqualified attack OR unthinking support. You may have forgotten the occasions on which I noted particular right actions for which I thought Bush deserved credit. POssibly that is because they were few and far between. So far, to the degree he can do so, Obama has promoted openness and transparency, investment in infrastructure and new energy systems, responsible withdrawal from Iaq, opening discussions with Iran, more reasonable diplomacy, more equitable taxes, more scientific approaches to science issues, more respect for Constitutional requirements, less arbitrary exercise of Executive power, and a number of other things which are important improvements over the last Administration. He's been in office something like --what, eight weeks? He's delivering on his promises within the constraints of the battles and bureaucratic inertia he has to work through. I suggest he is a big improvement. A |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Greg F. Date: 17 Mar 09 - 11:18 AM If that's what BB sees, its way past time for a visit to the optometrist. |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Mar 09 - 11:05 AM Amos, What I see is that ANY criticism of Obama is derided, while you expected serious rebuttal on any comment you made on Bush, or stated it was fact when it was only opinion. Bush is NOT Obama- But you have to allow the same level of comments as YOU insisted were proper for one to be applied to the other. |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 17 Mar 09 - 11:02 AM Yeah--it weastes your time and annoys the pig. Bruce, though, is not a pig. He is an honorable human being. He just gets pigheaded at times.:>) An important distinction. A |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Greg F. Date: 17 Mar 09 - 10:57 AM Amos- I seem to recall an old saying about trying to teach a pig to sing... |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 17 Mar 09 - 10:53 AM SIgh. I have frequently pointed out the differences between those two things, Bruce. FIxed ideas are not conducive to reason or dialogue or discovery or truth. Bush and Obama are very different. SUck it up. A |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Mar 09 - 10:29 AM What's the matter, Amos? Treating Obama the way you treated Bush beginning to bother you?? Suck it up! |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Greg F. Date: 17 Mar 09 - 10:06 AM Good Night, and Good Luck. |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 17 Mar 09 - 09:58 AM Ohh, that's news. If bad things happen, people could think less of the PResident. Why that's almost as scary as a fact!! A |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Mar 09 - 09:32 AM Borger: Where's the White House's tipping point? Story Highlights Gloria Borger: Revelations about AIG bonuses puts White House in difficult position Borger: Cynicism and outrage over banks could transfer to President Obama Obama has to make convincing case for rescuing the bad guys, analyst says Obama needs track record if he has to go to Congress for more money, she says By Gloria Borger CNN Senior Political Analyst WASHINGTON (CNN) -- When the White House first got wind of the executive bonuses at American International Group, the disbelief was palpable. "You smack your head and you say 'You've gotta be kidding me,' " senior presidential adviser David Axelrod tells me. "It put another brick on the load we're carrying." Or a concrete block. Just as the White House readies its long-awaited plan to bail out the banks -- having presented its plans for housing and small business -- a new wave of anger is precisely what it doesn't need. And to make matters worse, it's a widespread anger that is not grounded in the more ordinary resentments between economic classes. In fact, this new populism is almost unanimous: The banks were greedy and reckless. They took us down with them. So why do the bad guys deserve a government cushion? President Obama now has his economic team on the hunt for a way to scale back those egregious bonuses. But the president's problem goes beyond that: He has to make a convincing case for bailing out the bad guys. He has to take the long view -- explaining why it would hurt us to allow the banks to fail. "People would call it a bailout; I would call it a ransom," the American Enterprise Institute's Vincent Reinhart told CNN. "Because Wall Street is holding the great economy hostage. As long as the financial institutions need funds, they won't make loans ... so what we have to do is pay them to get beyond this." But it may not be enough to say, "If we don't do this, we will face an economic Armageddon." Why? "The model in people's heads right now is extortion," Robert Reich, President Clinton's former labor secretary, tells me. "In order to reduce that anxiety and paranoia, the president has to assure the public that the benefit is not going to the bankers." -- that, in the end, it's going to benefit us. But, given the AIG bonuses, the public might well ask: "Why should we believe you? You lectured Wall Street before the first bailout -- and you told us you were going to hold them accountable." Reich says, "It makes them [the administration] look clueless. So not only does the administration have to explain exactly why this money is necessary, but also explain what is in place to keep the banks from doing this again." If that doesn't happen, the cynicism, skepticism, outrage and anger toward the banks will remain -- and could potentially transfer to the White House itself. In a new CNN /Opinion Research Corp. poll, Obama remains very popular (64 percent approval rating), but most of the public said it disapproves of how he is handling the banks (by 52 percent to 47 percent). "At some tipping point in the future," warns Reich, "the administration could be seen as part of the problem." That's the last thing the White House wants -- or needs. "We need the financial community to understand that the days of Gordon Gekko are over," presidential adviser Axelrod says, referring to Michael Douglas' greedy tycoon in the 1987 movie "Wall Street." How? "We need transparency and accountability and regulatory reform. ... And we have always said that. It's frustrating to be in this position." You bet it is. Particularly as the world literally awaits the banking bailout. And if Obama needs to go to Congress again for more money, he needs to have a track record. "We have to establish a level of credibility on this issue," Axelrod says. "People are outraged, and they have a reason to be." Sure, the president needs to feel our pain and anxiety. The trick is to avoid becoming a new outlet for it. |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 12 Mar 09 - 04:59 PM THis thread is taking on all the coloration of a Rush to failure... A |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Don Firth Date: 12 Mar 09 - 04:53 PM "You might think that with the greatest financial crisis of his lifetime, the president would want a few business leaders with experience managing large organizations in crisis." Like those who created the mess in the first place? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 12 Mar 09 - 09:24 AM A 'Phony War' On the Crisis By David Ignatius Thursday, March 12, 2009; Page A19 For all the legislative commotion surrounding the economic crisis, we are still living in the equivalent of "the phony war" of 1939 and 1940. War has been declared on the Great Recession, but it's basically politics as usual. The bickering and mismanagement that helped create the crisis are continuing, even though we elected a president who promised a new start. History tells us that phony war doesn't last forever and that when it ends, all hell breaks loose. World War II officially began with Germany's September 1939 attack on Poland, but for months it was just skirmishing on the sidelines. That hiatus ended on May 10, 1940, when Hitler invaded Belgium and its neighbors. Neville Chamberlain was out as British prime minister, and Winston Churchill arrived as the avenging angel. We're still in the Neville Chamberlain phase when it comes to the economic crisis. The government is talking about sacrifice and solutions, but it hasn't yet made the tough decisions that will put the economy back together. Economist David Smick had it right in The Post this week when he said the administration had a three-pronged strategy: delay, delay and delay. The administration announces a rescue package but doesn't deliver details; it promises budget discipline but saves the hard decisions for later. One reason this season feels so political is that Obama has stacked his administration with politicians and former government officials. You might think that with the greatest financial crisis of his lifetime, the president would want a few business leaders with experience managing large organizations in crisis. But no. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/11/AR2009031103214.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 12 Mar 09 - 09:21 AM Paved With Magnificent Intentions By George F. Will Thursday, March 12, 2009; Page A19 Charles Dickens, who visited in 1842, described Washington as a "city of magnificent intentions" because of the incongruity between the city's grand aspirations and muddy, swampy actuality. Today Washington's discrepancy is not architectural but political. It is between the extraordinary powers and competences the administration claims it has and the administration's inability to be clear or plausible about what it is doing. Improvisation is understandable when confronting the unprecedented, but protracted improvisation precludes a prerequisite for recovery -- investors' certainty about the relationship between the government and the economy. One year ago this weekend, that relationship began changing when the Bush administration decided that Bear Stearns, the nation's fifth-largest investment bank, was too big, or too connected -- too something -- to be allowed to fail. Seven months later, with the financial system frozen, Congress passed the Troubled Assets Relief Program, fresh proof that the titles of legislation, like the titles of Marx Brothers movies ("Duck Soup," "Horse Feathers"), are uninformative about the contents. Quicker than you can say "toxic assets," which TARP was supposedly designed to quarantine, TARP was subsidizing the manufacture of automobiles partially designed by Washington. Which recent government adventure in enterprise justifies such government confidence? Fannie Mae? Freddie Mac? Amtrak? Ethanol? The government has subsidized ethanol, protected it with tariffs, mandated levels of production and authorized 10 percent ethanol in gasoline blends, and now the shrinking ethanol industry wants government to authorize 15 percent. Five months after enactment of TARP, a plan for unfreezing the credit system remains, like Atlantis, rumored but unseen. Twelve months after the government brokered the marriage of Bear Stearns and J.P. Morgan Chase, the government is recapitalizing financial institutions that the market has said should be shuttered. Lawrence H. White, economics professor at the University of Missouri at St. Louis, denies that financial institutions ever were "unregulated." Hitherto, such institutions were "regulated by profit and loss": http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/11/AR2009031103216.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Don Firth Date: 11 Mar 09 - 02:51 PM Okay, sports fans, here you go! Listen up, Sawz! This morning on the news, Obama stated that earmarks would be gone through one by one to make certain that they address a "legitimate and worthwhile public purpose." Otherwise, they will be eliminated. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Mar 09 - 07:59 AM Sebelius's 'Choice' Obama's Messenger for Moral Incoherence By Michael Gerson Wednesday, March 11, 2009; Page A15 There is a common thread running through President Obama's pro-choice agenda: the coercion of those who disagree with it. Obama has begun providing federal funds for international groups that promote or perform abortions overseas. He has moved to weaken conscience protections for health-care professionals. And he has chosen the most radical possible option on the use of embryonic stem cells -- a free license for researchers, with boundaries set only by the National Institutes of Health. Now, taxpayers are likely to fund not only research on the "spare" embryos from in vitro fertilization but also on human lives produced and ended for the sole purpose of scientific exploitation. Biotechnicians have been freed from the vulgar moralism of the masses, so they can operate according to the vulgar utilitarianism of their own social clique -- the belief that some human lives can be planted, plucked and processed for the benefit of others. It is the incurable itch of pro-choice activists to compel everyone's complicity in their agenda. Somehow, getting "politics out of science" translates into taxpayer funding for embryo experimentation. "Choice" becomes a demand on doctors and nurses to violate their deepest beliefs or face discrimination. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/10/AR2009031002838.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Mar 09 - 07:54 AM Mr. President, Time to Rein In The Chaos By Andrew S. Grove Wednesday, March 11, 2009; Page A15 There is nothing more difficult . . . than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. -- Niccolò Machiavelli Machiavelli's 500-year-old warning notwithstanding, we elected a president who is committed to "change." The economic meltdown in which our country finds itself at the start of his administration makes his difficult task even more daunting. In less than two months, the hopeful enthusiasm that welcomed the Obama administration has given way to growing worry and frustration. I find myself wringing my hands, not over the goals President Obama has set but over the ineffectual ways the administration has pursued them. I have no qualifications to judge how well the Obama team manages the political dynamics, but as a business executive with 40 years' experience, much of it managing change, and a part-time academic dedicated to studying why so few corporations succeed in navigating change, I feel compelled to comment not on the what of the Obama team's efforts but on the how. I have found that to succeed, an organization must travel through two phases: first, a period of chaotic experimentation in which intense discussion is allowed, even encouraged, by those in charge. In time, when the chaos becomes unbearable, the leadership reins in chaos with a firm hand. The first phase serves to expose the needs and options, the potential and pitfalls. The organization and its leaders learn a lot going through this phase. But frustration also builds, and eventually the cry is heard: Make a decision -- any decision -- but make it now. The time comes for the leadership to end the chaos and commit to a path. We have gone through months of chaos experimenting with ways to introduce stability in our financial system. The goals were to allow the financial institutions to do their jobs and to develop confidence in them. I believe by now, the people are eager for the administration to rein in chaos. But this is not happening. Until the administration does this, we should not embark on attempting to fix another major part of the economy. Our health-care system may well be ripe for a major overhaul, as are our energy and environmental policies. Widespread recognition that all of these reforms are overdue contributed to Barack Obama's victory in November. But if the chaos that resulted from initiating such an overhaul were piled on top of the unresolved status of the financial system, society and government would become exhausted. Instead, the administration must adopt a discipline; not initiating a second wave of chaos before we have a chance to rein in the first. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/10/AR2009031003211.html |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 11 Mar 09 - 06:42 AM UN chief to share concerns with Congress John Heilprin, Associated Press Writer – Wed Mar 11, 3:37 am ET WASHINGTON – Buoyed by President Barack Obama's pledge to work on bringing peace to Darfur, the U.N. chief is making the rounds of Capitol Hill to strengthen cooperation on climate change and other pressing global crises. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was to meet with Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., the House Foreign Relations chairman, Wednesday morning and with Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in the afternoon. Climate change was expected to dominate Ban's meetings. There also has been interest on the Hill about Sudan and the way the United Nations conducts its investigation into Israel's bombing of a U.N. compound in Gaza City. Ban, who became secretary-general in January 2007, accepted Obama's invitation for an Oval Office meeting Tuesday. At the meeting, Obama declared that the violence in Darfur and inaction in the face of its worsening humanitarian crisis are "not acceptable." The president pledged to work more closely with the United Nations to bring peace to western Sudan's conflict-wracked region. His comments were the strongest to date on the situation in Darfur since Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir kicked out 13 aid groups after the International Criminal Court issued a warrant for his arrest on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Ebbie Date: 09 Mar 09 - 10:15 AM I think this is the operative phrase: "With today's depressed economy, big deficits are unavoidable for some years." |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Donuel Date: 09 Mar 09 - 09:22 AM For 60 years the budget has been 66% guns Look around and you will see this country cold use some butter for a change. |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Mar 09 - 08:54 AM Opps! wrong clicky- it should be http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/08/AR2009030801496.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Mar 09 - 08:53 AM Obama's Double Talk TOOLBOX Resize Print E-mail Yahoo! BuzzSave/Share + DiggNewsvinedel.icio.usStumble It!RedditFacebookmyspaceNewsTrust COMMENT washingtonpost.com readers have posted 57 comments about this item. View All Comments » POST A COMMENT You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register Why Do I Have to Log In Again? Log In Again? CLOSEWe've made some updates to washingtonpost.com's Groups, MyPost and comment pages. We need you to verify your MyPost ID by logging in before you can post to the new pages. We apologize for the inconvenience. Discussion PolicyYour browser's settings may be preventing you from commenting on and viewing comments about this item. See instructions for fixing the problem. Discussion Policy CLOSEComments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post. Who's Blogging» Links to this article By Robert J. Samuelson Monday, March 9, 2009; Page A15 To those who believe that Barack Obama is a different kind of politician -- more honest, more courageous -- please don't examine his administration's budget. If you do, you may sadly conclude that he resembles presidents stretching back to John Kennedy in one crucial respect. He won't tax voters for all the government services they want. That's the main reason we've run budget deficits in 43 of the past 48 years. This Story Hard Lessons in Helping Homeowners Obama's Double Talk The Audacity of AudacityThis Story Obama's Double Talk The Audacity of Audacity Obama's Stunted Stimulus Obama is a great pretender. He repeatedly says he is doing things that he isn't, trusting his powerful rhetoric to obscure the difference. He has made "responsibility" a personal theme; the budget's cover line is "A New Era of Responsibility." He says the budget begins "making the tough choices necessary to restore fiscal discipline." It doesn't. With today's depressed economy, big deficits are unavoidable for some years. But let's assume that Obama wins reelection. By his last year, 2016, the economy presumably will have long recovered. What does his final budget look like? Well, it runs a $637 billion deficit, equal to 3.2 percent of the economy (gross domestic product), projects Obama's Office of Management and Budget. That would match Ronald Reagan's last deficit, 3.1 percent of GDP in 1988, so fiercely criticized by Democrats. As a society, we should pay in taxes what it costs government to provide desired services. If benefits don't seem equal to burdens, then the spending isn't worth it. (Exceptions: deficits in wartime and economic slumps.) If Obama were "responsible," he would conduct a candid conversation about the role of government. Who deserves support and why? How big can government grow before higher taxes and deficits harm economic growth? Although Obama claims to be doing this, he hasn't confronted entitlement psychology -- the belief that government benefits once conferred should never be revoked. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/08/AR2009030801493.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Ebbie Date: 08 Mar 09 - 07:47 PM Given enough warning, Don, we'll all move to New Zealand or 'Straia. :) |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Don Firth Date: 08 Mar 09 - 07:41 PM Right, Ebbie. I forgot about Mt. Redoubt and it's nervous-making siblings studding Alaska. The whole West Coast is on major faults and is part of what's known as "the Ring of Fire." Washington State's volcanoes–and for that matter, the Cascade Mountain Range–was (is) caused by the Juan de Fuca tectonic plate sliding under the North American plate. That's also the bit of continental drift that has people a bit nervous about "The Big One," a 9+ earthquake and its resultant tsunamis. The geological record shows that there was a real doozy about 300 years ago, and pressure has been building up since then. Earthquakes and volcanoes are related. Both are the result of continental drift. As I say, I'm glad someone is minding the store. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: akenaton Date: 08 Mar 09 - 05:19 PM Lang may yer lum reek my dear......:0) |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Ebbie Date: 08 Mar 09 - 04:27 PM I can't speak for all Alaskans, Ake, but it is true for me. :) |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: akenaton Date: 08 Mar 09 - 03:51 PM "Mt. Redoubt, some miles from Anchorage, has been rumbling and steaming for weeks" Is this reaction common to all Alaskans Ebbs? |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Riginslinger Date: 08 Mar 09 - 12:00 PM That's true, Greg. Earwigs make it hard for politicians to hear. |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Greg F. Date: 08 Mar 09 - 11:00 AM What about earWIGS? Now, they ARE a problem! |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Riginslinger Date: 08 Mar 09 - 09:29 AM I'll have to admit, I've seen a lot of discussion about "earmarks," and find it hard to determine between an earmark and some of the other programs that makes really good sense. People who complain about money being spent as "stimulus" that doesn't actually employ folks seem to have a pretty good point, though, it seems to me. One of the things I've seen the state of Oregon doing is spending a lot of the money on asphalt paving, which, compared to other types of construction, really doesn't employ a lot of people and requires huge amounts of petroleum to boot. |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Ebbie Date: 08 Mar 09 - 04:22 AM Don Firth, Alaska too is concerned about volcanoes, having more volcanoes within its borders than any other state. I don't know if it/we had anything to do with the request for monitoring but I have read several editorials urging it. Mt. Redoubt, some miles from Anchorage, has been rumbling and steaming for weeks; no one knows when it will blow again. |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 08 Mar 09 - 03:31 AM Mr. Obama is being hammered — depending on the point of view of the critics — for the continuing collapse of the stock market, for not moving fast enough to revive the suicidal financial industry, for trying to stem the flood tide of home foreclosures, for trying to bring health insurance coverage to some of the millions of Americans who don't have any, for running up huge budget deficits as he tries to fend off the worst economic emergency since World War II and for not taking time out from all of the above to deal with — get this — earmarks. Earmarks. More than 4.4 million jobs have been lost since this monster recession officially got under way in December 2007, and we've got people wigging out over earmarks. Folks, get a grip. Some earmarks are good, some are not, but collectively they account for a tiny, tiny portion of the national budget — less than 1 percent. Freaking out over earmarks is like watching a neighborhood that is being consumed by flames and complaining that there is crabgrass on some of the lawns. In the midst of the craziness, conservatives are busy trying to blame this epic economic catastrophe — a conflagration of their own making — on the new president. Forget Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush and George Herbert Hoover Bush and the Heritage Foundation and the Club for Growth and Phil Gramm and Newt Gingrich and all the rest. The right-wingers would have you believe this is Obama's downturn. The bear market would no doubt have magically turned around by now, and those failing geniuses at the helm of our flat-lined megacorporations would no doubt be busy manufacturing new profits and putting people back to work — if only Mr. Obama had solved the banking crisis, had lowered taxes on the rich, had refused to consider running up those giant deficits (a difficult thing to do at the same time that you are saving banks and lowering taxes), and had abandoned any inclination that he might have had to reform health care and make it a little easier for ordinary American kids to get a better education. As the columnist Charles Krauthammer was kind enough to inform us: "The markets' recent precipitous decline is a reaction not just to the absence of any plausible bank rescue plan, but also to the suspicion that Obama sees the continuing financial crisis as usefully creating the psychological conditions — the sense of crisis bordering on fear-itself panic — for enacting his 'big-bang' agenda to federalize and/or socialize health care, education and energy, the commanding heights of post-industrial society." That's a more genteel version of the sentiment expressed a couple of weeks ago by the perpetually hysterical Alan Keyes, a Republican who was beaten by Mr. Obama in the Illinois Senate race in 2004. "Obama is a radical communist," said Mr. Keyes, "and I think it is becoming clear. That is what I told people in Illinois, and now everybody realizes it's true." I don't know whether President Obama's ultimate rescue plan for the financial industry will work. He is a thoughtful man running a thoughtful administration and the plan, a staggeringly complex and difficult work in progress, hasn't been revealed yet. What I know is that the renegade clowns who ruined this economy, the Republican right in alliance with big business and a fair number of feckless Democrats — all working in opposition to the interests of working families — have no credible basis for waging war against serious efforts to get us out of their mess. Maybe the markets are down because demand has dried up, because many of the nation's biggest firms have imploded and because Americans are losing their jobs and their homes by the millions. Maybe a dose of reality is in order, as opposed to the childish desire for yet another stock market bubble. Maybe the nuns in grammar school were right when they counseled that patience is a virtue. The man has been president for six weeks. (NYT) To those who think the President should have solved the entire Republican zeitgeist of insanity on six weeks, may I suggest you grow up, and grow a pair, and assess reality on its own terms. A |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Don Firth Date: 07 Mar 09 - 10:20 PM Crickets, locusts, grasshoppers. Here ya go, Rig: CLICKY. A few decades back, a friend of mine was hitchhiking across Utah and found himself way to hell and gone out on the highway in the middle of nowhere. No cars had been along for some time, the sun was hot, he didn't have any water with him, and he was getting a bit worried. He saw something strange coming toward him. It seemed to cover a fair patch of ground and it was making a weird, unearthly noise. At first, he was unable to figure out what it was due to the heat-shimmering air close to the sun-baked ground, but it some resolved itself into a huge herd of turkeys, being "shepherded" by a kid about ten years old. My friend hailed the kid, who was carrying what turned out to be a large goatskin of water, and asked if he could spare a drink. The kid said, "Sure." He always carried a good supply of water with him because, among other things, this wasn't the first time he had encountered someone wandering around in the middle of nowhere. When my friend had quenched his thirst, he indicated the barrenness if the land they were in, little better than desert, and asked the young turkey wrangler, "What do these turkeys live on out here?" "Grasshoppers," answered that lad. My friend thought about it for a moment, then asked, "What do the grasshoppers live on?" "Turkey droppings," answered the lad. Ain't nature wonderful!?? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Riginslinger Date: 07 Mar 09 - 09:15 PM "crickets are a problem in Utah." I always heard it was locusts that were a problem in Utah, which is why the pray to seagulls, along with golden tablets and... |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Don Firth Date: 07 Mar 09 - 04:49 PM By the way, that was 400. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Don Firth Date: 07 Mar 09 - 04:47 PM Most of the stuff on that list I don't see as "pork." Think about it: crickets are a problem in Utah. Always have been. They play hell with crops. Have you ever been downwind of a pig farm? Not nice, especially if you happen to live there. Instead of just dismissing it, put your brain in gear and go over that list again. Among other things, Jindal got a big laugh out of "volcano monitoring." I guess he doesn't live in a state with three active volcanoes in it: Mt. Baker, which was rumbling and emitting steam in the late 1970s and is still very much alive, Mt. St. Helens, which erupted in 1980, killed about 30 people, and did an immense amount of property damage, and is still rumbling, and Mt. Rainier, which is venting steam, and if it erupts, could do a real Vesuvius/Pompeii number on populated areas such as Seattle, Tacoma, and Olympia, and a number of other communities in the area. Hawaii has a problem that way too, and California and Oregon are not immune either. I'm glad that somebody is minding the store. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 07 Mar 09 - 04:21 PM Sawz: You are shooting off your mouth again, but you ain't saying much of truth. This was not the Obama budget you are pointing at. This budget was the result of all the hard work during the last half of 2008. I forget who was President then, but it was not Obama or your mama. A |
