 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 22 Feb 10 - 04:20 PM Little Hawk: Your wisdom, profundity, and clarity are impeccable; but surely even from your high tower, you recognize that such unblemished perspectives have little merit in the political jousting lists!! :D A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Feb 10 - 03:57 PM "I think I have been seriously wrong in sustaining this stupid argumentative shuttlecock with you." BINGO!!! ;-) If I may allude to the old Buddhist proverb about the farmer and the cow, Amos... The farmer leads the cow around by a rope, and it appears that the farmer is in command of the situation. But who is really tied to whom? Is the cow tied to the farmer or is the farmer tied to the cow? Which one is freer? Or are they both tied, one to the other? Which one is mentally freer, the farmer or the cow? Could the farmer decide to let go of the rope and release the cow? And if so, then what? Is this particular cow one which it really makes any sense for the farmer to keep dragging around? What will it really profit the farmer to hang on to this particular cow? And I could say the same thing to Bruce... ;-) One thing is certain. The farmer will either drag the cow around until one of them dies.......or he will decide to let go of the rope at some point. At that moment, he will no longer be tied to the cow nor will the cow be tied to him. Each will have become free of the other. ***** Here's another thought. A man decided to have an argument with the ocean and cause it to stop rolling in noisily on his shoreline. He went down every day with a baseball bat. If he saw the breakers rolling in, he would beat furiously on the water with the bat, yelling "Now, you stop that at once!" He felt that if he kept this up long enough, the ocean would relent and stop rolling in. The argument went on and on and on for years, but the ocean wouldn't give in. Neither would the man. Finally the man died. The ocean is still rolling in. What did the man gain? Well, it gave him a sense of meaning and righteous justification for awhile, so perhaps it wasn't a total waste of his time...though that is certainly debatable! ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 22 Feb 10 - 03:43 PM No matter... The US spends 17% of it's GNP on health care compared to 9% by Germany and can't even rate in the Top 20 in terms of life expectancy... But nevermind that 'cause when you factor in the costs of our collectively piss-poor health care it drives up the costs of our goods and services and therefore costs US jobs because with those added costs in a competetive global market we just falt out cannot compete... The Dems plan is at least a plan... Yes, it does force people to by insurance so that younger workers, who tend to have fewer claims. will be pitchin' into the pool... So the fuck what??? Horrors... We have mandatory insurance for autos so pleeeeeze don't say that this is illegal because it plainly isn't... Oh yeah, it also insures 30 t0 35M people who aren't inusred which will bring down costs because people won't wait until they are very sick (think expensive hospital stays here not covered that hospitals "eat" whiich drives up costs for everyone else)... Oh yeah, it also requires that a certain percentage of premiums go to paying claims??? Horrors, right??? The Repub plan... Ahhhhhh, none of the above... The only component of the Repub plan is to permit health insurance companies to sell in other markets... Hey, the Dem plan has this in it, as well, but if anyone thinks that this constitutes a national reform then pleeeeze PM 'cause I've got a bridge to sell you... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 22 Feb 10 - 03:24 PM Bruce: I think I have been seriously wrong in sustaining this stupid argumentative shuttlecock with you. As I suppose you know, it is not the source, but the reasoning that makes the difference as far as substance goes. But one provate individual's whinging is a good deal less important than a national policy proposal, in the wider scheme of things. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Feb 10 - 02:37 PM Amos, YOUR posts from the anti-Bush thread seemed to say that ONLY the reporter can be trusted, and that the WH always lies. Don't tell me you admit to being wrong? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 22 Feb 10 - 01:55 PM Ass. There's a world of difference between an official WH post and some individual reporter's kvetching. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Feb 10 - 01:32 PM http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal sounds like a bunch of claims that have no validity- I guess the Press secretary doesn't have a mouth or opinion, since you accept it as gospel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 22 Feb 10 - 12:58 PM So the whole thing hinges around one lady with a mouth and an opinion...really sharp reporting, that. Obama's proposal on health care is pleasantly understandable. The bipartisan debate will be televised. Change you can believe in. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Feb 10 - 12:44 PM Amos, Read the article BEFORE you criticise. "President Obama, who pledged to establish the most open and transparent administration in history, on Monday surpasses his predecessor's record for avoiding a full-fledged question-and-answer session with White House reporters in a formal press conference. President George W. Bush's longest stretch between prime-time, nationally televised press conferences was 214 days, from April 4 to Nov. 4, 2004. Mr. Obama tops that record on Monday, going 215 days - stretching back to July 22, according to records kept by CBS Radio's veteran reporter Mark Knoller. The president has seemingly shunned formal, prime-time sessions since his last disastrous presser, when he said police in Cambridge, Mass., "acted stupidly" by arresting a Harvard professor who broke into a home that turned out to be his own. The off-the-cuff comment took over the news cycle for a week, overshadowing his push for health care reform, and culminated in a White House "Beer Summit," where the president hosted white police officer James Crowley and the black Harvard professor, Henry Louis Gates Jr. "He does seem a little snakebit on the whole presser thing," said Julie Mason, a longtime White House reporter and board member of the White House Correspondents' Association. "At his last big press conference in July, he lost control of the message with his response to the Gates question, and then returns six months later with an unannounced, five-question avail in the briefing room - on a snow day. Was it something we said?" " It is the prime time real press conferences that Obama does not like- since he does not have as much control over them as interviews he gives his friends. "Earlier this month, the president did field a few questions from reporters in a "mini-presser." He dropped by the White House briefing room unannounced at midday just after Washington's second snowstorm, right when the daily briefing by the press secretary was to occur. The "press availability" lasted only 33 minutes and encompassed questions from just five reporters - plus one after Mr. Obama tried to head for the door. In contrast, a typical White House press conference is usually announced well in advance and takes place in the far more formal White House East Room. The prime-time sessions - carried live by all TV networks - last at least an hour and include questions from 12 to 15 reporters, sometimes more. "I don't count that five-question, surprise 'avail,' as a presser," Miss Mason said. Still, Mr. Obama has held plenty of tightly controlled sessions with reporters. He has given 66 interviews since July 22 - including two that day, according to Mr. Knoller's records. But that doesn't satisfy White House veterans. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 22 Feb 10 - 12:30 PM You post such bizarre stuff, Bruce, you and Sawz. This guy writes an analysisof Obama's press relations and reckons it all up at the end as saying Obama did more press discussions than Bush did, and then caps it all with an invidious headline saying Obama is "ducking" more than Bush did. This kind of crap is why y'all get a rep for being just a little shy of a bushel, buddy. It's not the position, it's the dumbness. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 22 Feb 10 - 12:15 PM Ya' see, bruce... I don't go around usin' racism every time someone disagrees with me... I reserve it for instances where there is a strong odor of racism... The part that no rightie can expalin here is why such a concerted effort to get Obama out by the right??? His policy positions, by my standards, are moderate to right... Why is it that the right puts forth an idea abd Obama says' Yeah, okay, let's try it" and then the right runs from it like it was radiation... This is different than the 8 year long assualt by the right of Clinton... Ya, see, bruce... Things are just very stinky on the right... Stuff just doesn't add up... Oh yeah, for those on the right things add up just fine... Shutting dwon the Senate is just fine... Standing back and watching an unprecidented assualt on the president by the richest of the rich corporations is just fine... Ya' see how we on the other side are wonderin' what the motives are here??? No, of course, you don't... As for the approval rating??? It is bought and paid for.... It's amazing witgh the billions that the right has thrown at discredited Obama that it's not in single digits by now... Maybe the right needs to fire their PR team and get a nastier one??? I donno??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Feb 10 - 12:06 PM Daily Presidential Tracking Poll Monday, February 22, 2010 The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 22% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. That matches yesterday's result as the lowest level of strong approval yet recorded for this President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19 (see trends). The only day that Barack Obama's Approval Index ratings were lower than today was last December 22. Like today, that came at a time when the President was making a strong push for his proposed health care legislation. Most voters have consistently opposed that plan. Forty-seven percent (47%) say it is possible for the U.S. to achieve victory in Afghanistan while 30% disagree. Voters remain divided as to whether the primary objective should be victory or getting troops home as soon as possible. New data released this morning on the Republican primary in Florida shows that Marco Rubio has opened a wider lead over Charlie Crist. Check out our review of last week's key polls to see "What They Told Us." Topics include voter frustration with Washington, health care, Election 2010 and more. The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook. Overall, 45% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-four percent (54%) disapprove. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Feb 10 - 12:05 PM Obama tops Bush at ducking By Joseph Curl President Obama, who pledged to establish the most open and transparent administration in history, on Monday surpasses his predecessor's record for avoiding a full-fledged question-and-answer session with White House reporters in a formal press conference. President George W. Bush's longest stretch between prime-time, nationally televised press conferences was 214 days, from April 4 to Nov. 4, 2004. Mr. Obama tops that record on Monday, going 215 days - stretching back to July 22, according to records kept by CBS Radio's veteran reporter Mark Knoller. The president has seemingly shunned formal, prime-time sessions since his last disastrous presser, when he said police in Cambridge, Mass., "acted stupidly" by arresting a Harvard professor who broke into a home that turned out to be his own. The off-the-cuff comment took over the news cycle for a week, overshadowing his push for health care reform, and culminated in a White House "Beer Summit," where the president hosted white police officer James Crowley and the black Harvard professor, Henry Louis Gates Jr. "He does seem a little snakebit on the whole presser thing," said Julie Mason, a longtime White House reporter and board member of the White House Correspondents' Association. "At his last big press conference in July, he lost control of the message with his response to the Gates question, and then returns six months later with an unannounced, five-question avail in the briefing room - on a snow day. Was it something we said?" Earlier this month, the president did field a few questions from reporters in a "mini-presser." He dropped by the White House briefing room unannounced at midday just after Washington's second snowstorm, right when the daily briefing by the press secretary was to occur. The "press availability" lasted only 33 minutes and encompassed questions from just five reporters - plus one after Mr. Obama tried to head for the door. In contrast, a typical White House press conference is usually announced well in advance and takes place in the far more formal White House East Room. The prime-time sessions - carried live by all TV networks - last at least an hour and include questions from 12 to 15 reporters, sometimes more. "I don't count that five-question, surprise 'avail,' as a presser," Miss Mason said. Still, Mr. Obama has held plenty of tightly controlled sessions with reporters. He has given 66 interviews since July 22 - including two that day, according to Mr. Knoller's records. But that doesn't satisfy White House veterans. "The administration will point you to all the interviews he does, but that is all about control. We are naturally at cross-purposes with him, because he wants to come out with his talking points and the press wants to knock him off those talking points - so the result is he just doesn't come around anymore," Miss Mason said. Nevertheless, Mr. Obama tops his predecessor in total output. He has given 43 press conferences of various degrees, six of which were solo White House sessions, Mr. Knoller said. During the same period, Mr. Bush gave 24 press conferences, of which four were formal, solo White House sessions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Feb 10 - 11:55 AM Bobert, You are entitled to your opinion, as am I: But I do not agree with it, nor do I think the methods and policies that you seem to be in favor of are ones that will lessen racism, solve the real problems we have, or make the world a better place. Just my opinion- As valid as yours. Is it racist to not like policies that I did not like when proposed by lily-white liberals? If so, we have a real problem- you are demonstration what I would call "liberal racism"- the idea that "blacks" ( or whatever minority the liberal thinks should be "helped") aren't good enough unless given special treatment and rules, different from the ones the rest of us live by. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 22 Feb 10 - 11:49 AM I think I am going to start posting links to rational, compassionate and enlightened articles with screaming 15-point links (like Sawz uses to make tangential or off-topic incomprehensible comments). GAO SAYS DEMOCRATS ARE MAKING THINGS BETTER!! EMPLOYMENT CONTINUES TO IMPROVE UNDER OBAMA ADMINISTRATIONINTERNATIONAL RESPECT FOR US REGAINED UNDER OBAMA!!POLL REVEALS DEMS WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG!!.Do ya think this will aid to the clarity of the discussion? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 22 Feb 10 - 11:39 AM Yer both missing the point here... Now much has them right and their flowerly sounding groups like "Americans for Health Care", (not a realname) and the such thrown at advertising, at organizing the August town meetings and at oganizing Tea Party events... I'll tell you how much because neither of you, not I have a clue... More than anyone knows!!! This money has been spread around in billions here and billions there... Yeah, go ahead and laugh about the "right winged conspiracy" but it exists... It exists thru FOX news which was involved in oragnizing the town meetings, it ixists in the massive sums of money funneled thru flowerly sounding groups, it exists thru mailers, thru phone robo calls, thru actaul phone polls which are as phoney as a $3 bill, it exists thru the media (which corporate media own lock, stcck and barrel)... This is the reality that neither of you can accept because you are both part of the right weinged conspiracy and you both know it... But you'll never admit it... Here's a little test for ya... Are you happy that the Republican Party has, in essence, shut down the legislatative branch of governemnt... Of course, you are... You have convinced yourselves that it's because of Obama's liberalo and socialistic policy positions... You won't answer why it is that when Obama accepts a Republican idea that you ****reactively**** run from it like pigs from a gun... That's the reality... Here's one for both of ya'll: Yer both ***lieing to yourselfves*** and you are both ***hypocrits***... And I would guess that based on what I've seen and heard from ya'll's side here about Obama that I would suggest that ya'll also have a severe case of institutional racism going that youy don't even know about yourselves... That's what I was talkin' about in my last post... That is institutional racism... No, it ain't KKK variety but it's racism, non the less... The brownshirts didn't think they were doin' anything wrong, either... Know what I mean, Vern??? No, neither of you do 'cause you have been programed... No disrespect intended... That's just the way it is... Of course you could say that I have been programed and, yeah, to some degree I have... I believe in the stuff that Jesus talked about... You know, takin' care of the poor... Callin' hypocrisy when it rears it's head... Puttin' people over money... so... ...I'll take the prgram that I have over the hypocritical, anit-human, anti-Earth one that ya'lls is stuck with... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 22 Feb 10 - 11:34 AM Well and good. The "Tea Party" should be over, as it is a kafluffle of small-minded reactionary noise. Your effort at an "expose" actually looks like a good idea to me, Sawz. What you come up with seems commendable to those you seek to expose. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 22 Feb 10 - 10:30 AM "even well meaning people have bought into this high $$$ PR attack" Yep. Here is the documentation of a high $$$ PR attack: TheTeaPartyIsOver.org by American Public Policy Committee specifically attacks Randy Hultgren, a Republican Illinois state senator and candidate for U.S. Congress from the 14th District; Arie Friedman, former military pilot and combat veteran of Desert Storm running for U.S. Congress in Illinois' 10th District; and David McAloon, television producer and business consultant running for U.S. Congress in Illinois' 11th District. It provides telephone numbers and tells visitors to call Hultgren, Friedman and McAloon and tell then to "reject the dangerous ideas of the Tea Party." prevent the Tea Party's dangerous ideas from gaining legislative traction. On the website:TheTeaPartyIsOver.org Our Strategy is simple. This movement is a fad. Some of their ideas include the belief that programs like Social Security and Medicare are socialistic and should never have been created in the first place and that President Obama is a Socialist. Other ideas include undermining the legitimacy of the federal government in favor of a radical rightwing form of state's rights. We need to prevent their dangerous ideas from gaining a legislative foothold. So our strategy is to spread the truth about their dangerous ideas and prevent their policies from taking root in America. Paid for and approved by American Public Policy Committee The following are brief biographies for each of the American Public Policy Committee's directors: Craig Varoga Independent Strategies political strategist and campaign manager for former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack's campaign for president. He ran the state-research program for the 1996 Clinton-Gore re-election and is a former communications director for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. He is founder of the Patriot Majority and its affiliates: Patriot Majority West, Patriot Majority Midwest, Patriot Majority New Mexico and Patriot Majority for a Strong America. Patriot Majority and Patriot Majority West are the major 2010 contributors to the American Public Policy Committee. Varoga was a guest at a White House event in July 2009. George Rakis Political strategist who works for Independent Strategies. He served as political director of Democratic Governor's Association from 2005 to 2006. He was campaign director for the Michigan Democratic Party. In 2004, Rakis became the regional political director for the Democratic National Committee. Steve Bouchard Political strategist who runs Bouchard Strategies and has worked for Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va.; Gov. Ted Strickland, D-Ohio; former Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla.; former Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb.; and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton. Bouchard served as senior political adviser Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., ran Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign in South Carolina and also worked as a campaign manager for Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection/Repower America campaign. Independent Strategies is the only consulting firm in the country specializing in independent-issues communications. A full-service firm, Independent Strategies provides clients with strategic planning, voter-contact support and communications strategy. The firm's partners, Craig Varoga and George Rakis, use cutting-edge, results-driven methodologies to benefit their high-profile clients, including Presidential, Senate, Congressional, gubernatorial and mayoral campaigns; international and local labor unions; national political committees; state parties; independent-communications entities and hundreds of candidates in every region in the country. Independent Strategies is the only consulting firm in the country specializing in independent-issues communications. A full-service firm, Independent Strategies provides clients with strategic planning, voter-contact support and communications strategy. The firm's partners, Craig Varoga and George Rakis, use cutting-edge, results-driven methodologies to benefit their high-profile clients, including Presidential, Senate, Congressional, gubernatorial and mayoral campaigns; international and local labor unions; national political committees; state parties; independent-communications entities and hundreds of candidates in every region in the country. 527s Committees American Public Policy Committee: Overview State: District of Columbia Primary focus (state or federal): Federal Viewpoint: Liberal American Public Policy Committee: Donor SearchDomain Name: AMERICANPUBLICPOLICYCOMMITTEE.COM Administrative Contact:, Technical Contact Varoga, Craig 1613 Marshall Street Houston, TX 77006 Phone: 202-365-6888 DC Domain Name: PATRIOTMAJORITY.US Administrative Contact , Technical Contact Varoga, Craig cvaroga@independentstrategies.com 1613 Marshall Street Houston, TX 77006 Phone: 202-365-6888 DC Patriot Majority "527" Contribution Details |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Feb 10 - 10:09 AM Bobert, 1. Obama had LOTS more money than McCann. More from BOTH individuals and from Corporations. And from Unions: Just look at his payoffs to unions and then tell me about pork politics. 2. Some of those of us that judge Obama'a actions as President object to you, who keep judging him as a BLACK president telling us that any critcsm is racist. Why do YOU think Blacks should not be held to the SAME standards and laws as the rest of the human race? "The Right-Wing ownes the media... The Right-Wing owns the corpoartions which 80% of the wealth... Hmmmmmmmm???" Care to substantiate this claim? Looking at the CORPORATE contributions to Obama, I doubt if your statement is true. BTW, I think that as a Constitutional scholar he is certainly a good pick for the Supreme Court (he is far more qualified to be a justice than to be president-he had no executive experience, unlike Palin who had been a govenor and previously a mayor) BUT then I thought that about Bork. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 22 Feb 10 - 08:28 AM In yesterdays Washington Post (Outlook Section) there was an article about the possibility of Obama becomin' a Supreme Court justice... Now I'm sure the authors meant well becuase they said alot of flowery things about his background and his knowledge and his temperment and, and, and... But as I was reading it there was something that was really buggin' me about it and that is... ...even well intentioned people seem to buyin' into this notion that he's not presidential material??? This is just how institutional racism is part of our society... I mean, well intentioned folks sometimes don't realize just how condescending an article like that is... It's like becuase the right has mounted the largest PR campaign since Clinton that alot of folks now have doubts that Obama, who BTW is black, as president... Think about it this way... On any given night during the massive right-wing PR campaign during the health care debates Obam would get 15-20 seconds a night on the news, the right-wing, insurance owned politican would get 15-20 seconds on the news and then for the rest of the night it would be one 15-30 second commercial paid for by the insurnce lobby after another... With the average American watching 3 hours of TV per day that left the score card looking somethin like this: Obama: 15-20 seconds The Right-Wing: 600 seconds Hmmmmmmmmmm??? This is what alot of us are talkin' about here about the recent Supreme Court ruling... We allready know that the candidate who spends the most money (from dog catcher to president) wins 90% of the time... The Right-Wing ownes the media... The Right-Wing owns the corpoartions which 80% of the wealth... Hmmmmmmmm??? Maybe after the Right-Wing buys enough Obama-doubters they can get their guy back in as CEO... That is the plan... So, yeah, I find it very disturbing that even well meaning people have bought into this high $$$ PR attack... But that is just how powerfull the media and medai buys are... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Feb 10 - 07:50 AM Democrats worried about Obama track record By LIZ SIDOTI and RON FOURNIER WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic governors said Sunday they worry about President Barack Obama's track record on fighting Republican political attacks and urged him to better connect with anxious voters. Some allies pleaded for a new election-year strategy focused on the economy. "It's got to be better thought out," Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell said. "It's got to be more proactive." And, he said, Democrats must hit back just as hard as they are hit by Republicans. Eight months before the first midterm elections of Obama's presidency, most Americans are frustrated with - even angered by - persistent unemployment and gridlock in Washington. Democrats fear voters will punish the party in power. The titular head of his party, Obama has watched his own popularity drop over the past year. He will bear at least some responsibility for the outcome in November, and Democrats are looking to him for political fixes. In interviews at the National Governors Association's weekend meeting, several Democratic governors faulted the White House for losing the communications war against Republicans over what Obama has accomplished in his first year. "We fought back only sporadically and pretty ineffectively," Rendell said, adding that "right out of the box, we lost the spin war" on the $787 billion economic stimulus bill passed in 2009. Several Democratic colleagues agreed, and lamented that voters thought Obama focused too much on overhauling the U.S. health care system. Others fretted that Obama may appear to be out of touch with the concerns of Americans. "I think he's got more work to do on that," said Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, an Obama friend and ally. Even as they raised concerns, Democratic governors insisted that the White House has started turning things around. "The stars are aligning," said Delaware Gov. Jack Markell. Gov. Mike Beebe of Arkansas urged Obama to focus more on the economy and limit his actions on the health care system to changes that would bring down the cost of medical treatment in the United States. He called Obama's poll numbers "terrible" in Arkansas because voters don't think he's focused on their top priority, the economy. "People are unhappy," he said. "Now, in fairness, he didn't create this problem, but they want to see him fix it." While praising the White House's communication's efforts, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson offered this advice to Obama: "Rapidly decide what we're doing on health care and then move to jobs and the economy." "We need a national economic strategy," he added. Among the most vulnerable Democratic incumbents, Patrick said he and Obama faced the same vexing political issue in 2009: They were so busy dealing with an economic crisis that it was hard to stay in touch with voters. "If you don't know what happens at the point where policy touches people, you've got a problem," the Massachusetts governor said. Patrick said he will connect better with voters on the campaign trail, making sure they know that he understands their plight. He suspects Obama will do the same while campaigning for Democrats. Obama has other challenges. Patrick said Obama must walk a fine line between pushing back on Republican criticism and not looking overly partisan. "If you don't hit the bully back, you're just going to keep getting hit," Patrick said. "On the other hand, people don't want that tit for tat." He said he hasn't been in touch with the White House communications team but noted, "I'm sure they're struggling with that." Markell said Republican lawmakers have effectively put Obama on his heels by blocking Democratic initiatives. "The challenge has been to get through the clutter of 'No,'" he said. Rendell told ABC, "They just need to take a deep breath, look at what happened and revamp their strategy." Easy for him to say. Later, the Associated Press asked Rendell what, specifically, Obama should do to right his political ship. "I don't know," he said. Gov. Bill Ritter of Colorado suggested that the White House set too high expectations of how quickly the stimulus plan would create jobs. "If there was a communications issue," he said, "it was, perhaps, over the pace at which jobs would come back." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 22 Feb 10 - 12:26 AM Care for some Wagyu? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 22 Feb 10 - 12:08 AM Reporting from Henderson, Nev. Ñ Standing in the heart of the nation's hard-hit foreclosure country, President Obama on Friday rolled out a $1.5-billion mortgage program meant for a handful of states, including California and Nevada, that have endured waves of home foreclosures during the recession. The president also used the moment to give a needed boost to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's reelection chances, crediting him with helping stave off a depression over the last year Advertisement Ads by Google Obama mortgage program Qualify For Government Refinance Or Loan Modification Program www.FHA.com/HomeAffordable Another Unfair Bailout... Don't let Congress pass another one Help stop the Brown Bailout BrownBailout.com Obama spoke to 1,800 people at a town hall-style event as part of a two-day Western swing in which he raised money for Democrats and campaigned for two senators facing tough campaigns: Reid and Michael Bennet of Colorado. The announcement of new steps to prevent home foreclosures was aimed especially at Nevada, which has ranked first in foreclosures for 37 consecutive months. Although the administration has already put forward programs to reduce monthly mortgage payments, officials acknowledged that more relief is needed. Under the new policy, $1.5 billion that had been reserved for the bank bailout will be rerouted to five states that have seen housing prices drop more than 20% since 2006: Nevada, California, Michigan, Florida and Arizona. The money will go toward homeowners who have lost their jobs, owe more than their houses are worth or cannot afford to make monthly payments. After announcing the program, Obama got a standing ovation. "Government alone can't solve this problem," the president said. "And it shouldn't. But government can make a difference. It can't stop every foreclosure. . . . But what we can do is help families who have done everything right stay in their homes whenever possible." Polls indicate voters are unnerved by the economy and impatient with incumbents, and both Reid and the president seemed intent on showing they grasp the public mood. Reid got straight to the point in introducing Obama. Speaking in hushed tones, he opened with: "Mr. President, people in Nevada are really hurting. We have people out of work, people that are afraid they're going to lose their jobs." Nevada's 13% unemployment rate is the nation's second-highest, behind Michigan. Re: Health Reform: "Now, of course, the problem is that they can't mesh the Senate bill with the House bill using regular order, because Republicans will filibuster it. But most of the points of negotiation between House and Senate concern taxes and spending -- exactly the kinds of things that reconciliation is designed for. So it's fairly easy to just have the House pass the Senate bill, then use reconciliation to eliminate the Nebraska Medicaid subsidy and change the mix of taxes that pay for new coverage. Indeed, this process is probably easier than getting another 60 votes in the Senate would have been even if Martha Coakley had won. You can imagine how this feels to conservatives. They've already run off the field, sprayed themselves with champagne and taunted the losing team's fans. And now the other team is saying the game is still on and they have a good chance to win. There may be nothing wrong at all with the process, but it's certainly going to feel like some kind of crime to the right-wing. The Democrats may not win, but I'm pretty sure they're going to try. The conservative freakout is going to be something to behold." New Republic |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 22 Feb 10 - 12:00 AM WASHINGTON -- Former Secretary of State Colin Powell is rejecting charges that the country is less safe because of the way President Barack Obama has handled national security matters. The former army general and secretary of state under President George W. Bush says the U.S. "is still at risk" of attack. But he says the country isn't less safe because of Obama's handling of security, as former Vice President Dick Cheney has claimed. WASHINGTON - California Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger played Conan the Contrarian Sunday, pummeling his party for hypocrisy on jobs and health care. With the one-year anniversary of the $787 billion stimulus bill last week, Republicans chorused that it had failed, and created no jobs. But Schwarzenegger, who finishes his term this year, sang the Democrats' tune, claiming the recovery act was vital, and mocked members of his party who crow about the money they get in their own districts. "I find it interesting that you have a lot of the Republicans running around, and pushing back on the stimulus money and saying, 'This doesn't create any new jobs,'" the Govinator told ABC News' "This Week." "Then they go out and do the photo ops, and they are posing with the big check and they say, 'Isn't this great,'" he said. "It doesn't match up," he added, pointing to 150,000 private and public sector jobs funded in California. "I think it's kind of politics," he added. He also agreed that the GOP was the "Party of No," as Democrats have branded it. "They have to do everything they can in order to win in November. So they're going to say no to everything," he said. Schwarzenegger suggested that when the GOP leaders sit down with President Obama for a bipartisan health care summit Thursday, it's in their interest and the country's to compromise. Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/02/21/2010-02-21_republican_governor_arnold_schwarzenegger_defends_obamas_stimulus_plan.html#ixzz0gEo5yucU |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Alice Date: 21 Feb 10 - 07:06 PM ..."Now who we look to to lead US outta the abyss???" The Duchy of Grand Fenwick? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Ebbie Date: 21 Feb 10 - 06:48 PM "Hip-ho"p star Snoop Dogg has launched a scathing attack on U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama" Odd way to put it, Sawz- that bit was written before the '08 election. Are you checking ALL the barrels? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Feb 10 - 03:24 PM "Now who we look to to lead US outta the abyss???" Well, not Canada, Bobert. ;-) Sorry about that, but it's way beyond our capabilities, and we have troubles of our own. I am pinning my slight hopes on Liechtenstein. When they launch their surprise attack on the USA and take over, things will probably change for the better...specially if they heed my advice and take on William Shatner as interim ruler of the new nation... Bill's a big man. I know he'd be willing to step into the breech. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 21 Feb 10 - 01:43 PM Hip-hop star Snoop Dogg has launched a scathing attack on U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama - accusing him of gleaning support from a race hate group. The rapper, real name Calvin Broadus Jr., insists the Democratic candidate has received funding from historically anti-black organisation the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). He says, "The KKK gave Obama money. They was (sic) one of his biggest supporters... Why wouldn't they be? The media won't tell you that. They don't want you to know that. They just want you to know that this n**ger befriended this other n**ger who be (sic) threatening your values. "But we all know all presidents lie to get into f**king office. That's they (sic) job." But Dogg insists Obama will still emerge victorious in the October (08) elections. He adds, "In America's eyes, that muthaf**ker's gonna be president 'cos (John) MCCain can't f**k with him. Hillary (Clinton) can't f**k with him. He's winning over white people, white ladies." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 21 Feb 10 - 01:21 PM That's sad to hear, LH... I was hopin' that when things get too bad here that we'd at least have a positive role model to the North... Now who we look to to lead US outta the abyss??? B! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Feb 10 - 01:18 PM The political discourse in Canada has also deteriorated significantly since it's started being televised, and for exactly the same reasons Friedman indicates in his article. The politicians are playing to the cameras, showing off all the time by gratuitously attacking the other party instead of working together cooperatively to get anything useful done. It's become an empty show of partisan hostility...entertainment, in other words. Or you could call it "perpetual campaigning". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 21 Feb 10 - 01:06 PM It's Sunday, Sawz...lol... And for the record, I think Clinton was a lousy president in lots of areas... The one thing he got right was listenin' to Alan Greenspan who said that taxes would have to be increased in order to balance the budget... The rest of the stuff that Clinton did??? Don't even get me started... The article was right on, Eb... The Repubs are AWOL... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 21 Feb 10 - 12:56 PM "over the last 30 years (and yes, during Bill Clinton's administration, too)" Thanks for not beating that last 8 years drum Bobert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Ebbie Date: 21 Feb 10 - 10:57 AM Friedman's View of What Has Gone Wrong "Alas, though, instead of making nation-building in America his overarching narrative and then fitting health care, energy, educational reform, infrastructure, competitiveness and deficit reduction under that rubric, the president has pursued each separately. This made each initiative appear to be just some stand-alone liberal obsession to pay off a Democratic constituency — not an essential ingredient of a nation-building strategy — and, therefore, they have proved to be easily obstructed, picked off or delegitimized by opponents and lobbyists. "So "Obamism" feels at worst like a hodgepodge, at best like a to-do list — one that got way too dominated by health care instead of innovation and jobs — and not the least like a big, aspirational project that can bring out America's still vast potential for greatness. To be sure, taking over the presidency at the dawn of the lean years is no easy task. The president needs to persuade the country to invest in the future and pay for the past — past profligacy — all at the same time. We have to pay for more new schools and infrastructure than ever, while accepting more entitlement cuts than ever, when public trust in government is lower than ever. "On top of that, the Republican Party has never been more irresponsible. Having helped run the deficit to new heights during the recent Bush years, the G.O.P. is now unwilling to take any responsibility for dealing with it if it involves raising taxes. At the same time, the rise of cable TV has transformed politics in our country generally into just another spectator sport, like all-star wrestling. C-Span is just ESPN with only two teams. We watch it for entertainment, not solutions." And more. That's Friedmann, by the way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 21 Feb 10 - 09:50 AM Yeah, I see the economy as stayin' stagnant for a long time to come... It is fundamentally flawed in that the rules have changed so much over the last 30 years (and yes, during Bill Clinton's administration, too) that favor the corporations and monied class that there isn't enough wealth left for the workin' class to participate in the growth of the GNP... We have to remember that GNO represents the multiplicty effect of the dollar as opposed to the number of dollars that are in existence... In other words, those dollars have to circulate to create GNP... That can't happen if the workin' class is using their dollars just to pay bills to survive... There has to be descretionary income in thr working class for the GNP to really grow... So what has to occur before the economy will correct itself is really very simple in that wealth needs to be distibuted closer to the way it was in the early 80s before dereguation... All that deregulation has done is shift wealth away from the working class... If we de-socialize the corporations (wall street) and make them have to compete (novel concept) like the working class has to compete things can straighten themeselves out... Of course this is going to have to require "government" (horrors) actions... And it's going to involve changing the tax codes so that the 30% of the wealth that the rich now have that isn't taxed get taxed but, hey, the choices aren't very pretty... The rich need to understand that their holding all the wealth does not serve them in the long run.... Yeah, that's a hard sell.... A big pill to swallow... But if we don't do that there won't be the resources at either the governeemnt level (think balenced budgets v. deficits) or in the working class (think consumption) to sustain this current downward spiriling economy... And that, unfortunatly, is the way it is... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Feb 10 - 09:39 AM "A fact by definition is a fact--but there are a lot of ways to distort a fact and especially to distort several of them together by weaving a misleading context, spinning dissent and fear and other base emotions from a tissue of altered realities. Some of our folks here are specialists." IF that WAS what we were doing, we would have had expert training from observing you in the "Popular Views: Bush Administration" threads and elsewhere. You seem determined to require a double standard, that no one be allowed to do to those that YOU support what you have done to those that others support. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Feb 10 - 07:56 AM Bad economies in states to worsen: governors WASHINGTON Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:57pm Credit: Reuters/John Gress WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The already gloomy conditions of states' economies are set to worsen, according to preliminary survey findings from the National Governors Association released on Saturday. "The situation is fairly poor for a lot of states around the country. In fact, most states," Vermont Governor Jim Douglas, who is chairman of the association, said at a press conference at its annual meeting. "What we're finding out from a fiscal standpoint is that the worst is yet to come," Douglas said. In a survey conducted last week of 45 of the 50 states, the group found that states have $18.8 billion of budget gaps yet to be closed in fiscal 2010. This comes after they have already imposed measures to eliminate budget imbalances totaling $87 billion in the fiscal year, which for most started last summer. In the budgets they are drafting for fiscal 2011, states foresee shortfalls of $53.6 billion and for fiscal 2012 $61.6 billion. "Economists have declared the national recession over. But for those who are still unemployed, for those who have lost their homes, it's clear that as a nation we have a long way to go," said Douglas, who added that states' revenues have plummeted for four quarters in a row. States' economic recoveries usually lag national recoveries because of state governments' increased spending on help for the unemployed and declines in tax payments. All states except for one, Vermont, are required to balance their budgets, so during the recession they have drastically cut spending on basic programs, laid off workers and boosted revenue through raising taxes and fees. The $787 billion stimulus plan the U.S. Congress passed a year ago included the largest transfer of money from the federal government to states in the nation's history. But for many states, most of its funding will run out by December. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, also at the press conference, said the stimulus had delayed problems but not solved them. Douglas said the governors will press President Barack Obama for more help when they visit the White House on Monday. The survey also found that this fiscal year 38 states are bringing in far less revenue than what they had estimated at the beginning of the year and 21 states had to cut their budgets by more than 5 percent. Just as states are gasping for money, they are confronting a crisis in healthcare, said Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. Over the weekend the governors will discuss how to reduce healthcare costs as the federal push to reform the country's health insurance and medical treatment systems bogs down in Congress. "I expected... we would be talking about implementing a new national health plan," Douglas said about preparing for the meeting. "Here we are. It hasn't happened." The healthcare program for those with low incomes, Medicaid, is jointly administered by the states and the federal government and eats up large parts of most states' budgets. As people have lost their jobs and employee-sponsored health insurance during the longest and deepest recession since World War Two, they have turned to Medicaid and further strained the system. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Feb 10 - 07:45 AM From The Sunday Times February 21, 2010 Obama's 'Chicago mafia' blamed for paralysis at the top Christina Lamb in Washington 30 WHEN President Barack Obama's secret service codename was revealed as Renegade and his wife Michelle's as Renaissance, the names seemed perfect for a first couple who had come to Washington to shake things up. More than a year into the Obama administration, with healthcare yet to be reformed, Wall Street banks continuing to pay huge bonuses and Guantanamo Bay prison still open, that mood of hope has turned to disillusion. Obama's policy of engagement has yielded no progress in the Middle East or Iran; the war in Afghanistan continues to exact a big toll in lives and dollars; while the heaviest snow in Washington for 90 years seems to have stymied any hope of climate change legislation. The president and his team now find themselves under fire for mishandling Congress from everyone from senior Democrats to social columnists. Critics say that by failing to move on from the "us versus them" feeling of the Obama election campaign, they have united an opposition that was in disarray. The result is legislative paralysis despite the biggest Democratic majority in 30 years. Last week a prominent Democratic senator resigned after criticising both government and Congress. Evan Bayh from Indiana, who had never lost a race and was expected to be re-elected in November, complained that the party's recent loss of the Senate seat of the late Ted Kennedy should have been seen as a wake-up call. "Moderates and independents even in a state as Democratic as Massachusetts just aren't buying our message," he said. "They don't believe the answers we are currently proposing are solving their problems." Even society writers are disenchanted. "The Obama White House has closed ranks. They were completely overwhelmed by the new office," said Karen Sommer Shalett, editor-in-chief of DC magazine. "I haven't heard of them going to any house parties or Georgetown row houses to be entertained. "That's important because if you're social with someone over canapés and you know their wife and you know their children, you talk business in a friendlier way." When the Obamas do go to someone's house for dinner, almost invariably it is to the home of Valerie Jarrett, their old friend from Chicago who serves as a political adviser. The Wednesday evening White House cocktail parties which were launched with great fanfare as a way to reach out to Republicans, fizzled out last spring. The two parties seem more hostile than ever. "This administration has managed to divide its friends and unite its enemies," said Steve Clemons, director of the American Strategy Programme at the New America Foundation. He and others lay the blame on the Chicago team, advisers from Obama's adopted city. "Obama's West Wing is filled with people who are in their jobs because of their Chicago connections or because they signed on early during his presidential campaign," complained Doug Wilder, who in 1990s Virginia was America's first elected black governor and was an early backer of Obama. "One problem is they do not have sufficient experience at governing at the executive branch level. The deeper problem is that they are not listening to the people." Obama relies on five people, four of whom are Chicagoans. They are Rahm Emanuel, his chief of staff, David Axelrod and Jarrett, his political advisers, and Michelle, while the fifth kitchen cabinet member is Robert Gibbs, his chief spokesman, who comes from Alabama. The president consults them on everything. Military commanders were astounded when they participated in Afghanistan war councils and referred to them as the "Chicago mafia". It was this group that inserted into Obama's Afghan surge speech the deadline of July 2011 as a date to start withdrawing. With Democrats fearing big losses in the mid-term elections in November, the knives are out for Emanuel, whose abrasive manner and use of profanities have won him few friends. Although his job is to deflect criticism from his boss, Rahmbo, as he is known, seems to have gone over the top. The Wall Street Journal reported him losing his temper at a strategy session in August and referring to liberals as "f***ing retarded". He is said to have sent dead fish to a pollster whose numbers he did not like. Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, called on Obama to remove Emanuel, arguing that he needs someone who knows how to navigate Washington or will end up being no more than a speechmaker. "No one I've talked to believes he [Emanuel] has the management skills and discipline to run the White House," he wrote in The Daily Beast. Among those touted as possible replacements are David Gergen, a political consultant brought in by President Bill Clinton, or John Podesta, a former Clinton chief of staff who now heads the Center for American Progress, a left-wing pressure group. Emanuel would be unlikely to go without a fight. "Obama needs Emanuel at the top," argued Dana Milbank in yesterday's Washington Post, writing that the chief of staff was being unfairly blamed for the healthcare debacle. "Where the president is airy and idealistic, Rahm is earthy and calculating. One thinks big; the other, a former House Democratic caucus chair, understands the congressional mind, in which small stuff counts for more than broad strokes." In Milbank's view, Obama's real problem is his other confidants, Jarrett, Gibbs and Axelrod, whom he describes as "part of the cult of Obama", believing he is "a transformational figure who needn't dirty his hands in politics". While Obama may have campaigned on a slogan of change, he has shown himself reluctant to sack people. The problem may go deeper. Douglas Schoen, former pollster for Bill Clinton, believes the Obama team misinterpreted victory as an endorsement of his liberal agenda when it was really a reaction against George W Bush and the credit crisis. "They need to recognise there is only one fundamental issue in America: jobs," he said. What no one disputes is that Obama is extremely clever. Were it not for losing the Kennedy seat and with it the Democrats' 60-seat super-majority in the Senate, Obama would probably have signed healthcare into law by now. The president has not given up on the reform. He is expected to publish a revised bill today or Monday, just before a televised White House summit on Thursday with congressional Republicans. But they are calling on Democrats to start all over again with a far less sweeping proposal. The biggest hurdle may be Obama's own ambition combined with lack of experience. A leading Democratic supporter described his administration as "unfocused", adding that he had counted 137 items on Obama's agenda. "He needs to realise that he's running a huge operation and has to sequence priorities," said Clemons. "He's not thinking like the chief executive of a complex organisation." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7034910.ece |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Feb 10 - 02:07 PM Yes. That's what I was saying. A carefully chosen sprinkling of facts can be used to justify virtually any course of action, no matter how stupid or wrongful it is. You just pay attention to a few facts, make your decision on that basis alone, and ignore the rest of the facts. It's called "lying by omission", and it's a very commonly used technique in both politics and commercial advertising. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 20 Feb 10 - 01:26 PM A fact by definition is a fact--but there are a lot of ways to distort a fact and especially to distort several of them together by weaving a misleading context, spinning dissent and fear and other base emotions from a tissue of altered realities. Some of our folks here are specialists. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 20 Feb 10 - 01:23 PM Sawz: You are SO annoying. You seem to promulgate illogic as a virtue of some kind, a most Philistine impulse, I must say. Pray tell, what did I post that said such a thing, and in what context? Your post of 24 Jan 09 included this line: "enezuela, an OPEC member, is a key crude oil supplier to the United States, and Chavez has repeatedly threatened to cut off supplies even though the United States is his country's main customer". Searching through this entire thread I find no such statement. I asked you before what you were talking about, but you stonewalled that question. Some day you must tell us why you are so overheated as to falsify reality so assiduously. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Feb 10 - 01:22 PM Never mind the oil...just imagine the fuss if America's dick got cut off! ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: mousethief Date: 20 Feb 10 - 01:10 PM I like the Republicans voting against the stimulus bill, and claiming it doesn't help and makes things worse, then begging for funds from that bill for their own districts! HAW HAW! I guess what matters are the lies you can spin to your constituents. Spin, baby! They won't believe the WSJ (What's the WSJ doing outing Republicans?) -- if they hear about it at all -- they'll believe Senator Porksalot. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 20 Feb 10 - 12:08 PM "There is no such thing as an "untrue fact"! Think about it." True LH I should have said un true things that others present as facts. Like when Amos posts something that says America's oil has been cut off. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 20 Feb 10 - 11:57 AM Matt Rogers of the Department of Energy discusses how $36.7 billion from the Recovery Act is helping to define the future of green power--and the agency itself By Katherine Harmon FLASH OF FUNDING: The Recovery Act, signed into law last February, made available the largest investment in renewable energy development in history. Can wind turbines help to get the U.S. economy spinning again? The U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) is banking on the notion that they will at least help. With the $36.7 billion it received from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act last February, the agency is making historic investments in the energy industry. Not all of the money is going into building better turbines, of course. The agency is also putting big green toward a host of other emission-lowering projects, including better batteries ($2 billion), geothermal technologies ($400 million) and carbon capture and storage ($3.4 billion). Whereas the largest chunk of change ($16.8 billion) is going to renewable energy and energy conservation, one of the smallest cuts of the DoE stimulus payout ($1.6 billion) is going toward scientific research. In a congressional hearing on the DoE's 2011 budget earlier this month, Energy Secretary Steven Chu noted that science, however, was a crucial part of future development: "With every initiative the department undertakes, sound science must be at the core." Regardless of where the contracts, grants and loan guarantees are heading, though, little of the economic juice has gotten out to jump-start the energy field—or job market. Like many federal agencies, the DoE has yet to spend more than a small fraction (about $2.1 billion, or 6 percent) of its total allocation. ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 20 Feb 10 - 11:45 AM NYT: "Published: February 19, 2010 It was a pleasure to see President Obama come out swinging this week and win a round in the long-running fight with Republicans over the $787 billion stimulus bill. Skip to next paragraph Related Times Topics: Economic Stimulus On Wednesday, the first anniversary of the signing of the package into law, Mr. Obama and other administration officials detailed the success of the stimulus while Republicans kept trying to label it a failure. Democrats did not shy from pointing out that many Republicans who voted against the stimulus then lobbied to get some of the money for their districts. (The Wall Street Journal assembled a particularly telling hall of shame by using the Freedom of Information Act to obtain letters written by more than a dozen Republican lawmakers to various government agencies, asking that stimulus money be awarded for job-creating projects in their districts.) There is virtually no dispute among economists that the stimulus prevented a bad recession from becoming much worse. Among other things, it has preserved or created 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs, according to various private sector analyses, and it is expected, ultimately, to add a total of roughly 2.5 million jobs. But that hasn't stopped Republicans — all but three of whom voted against the stimulus — from claiming that it failed to create "a single job." They also have called it a waste and socialism, when it is basically Economics 101 for how government should act in a deep recession. They also blame the stimulus for the widening budget deficit. Wrong again. Today's deficits are largely rooted in the profligate Bush years, with stimulus contributing little to the long-term shortfall because the spending is temporary. The true test of Mr. Obama's ability to combat misinformation and win public support for stimulus will come in the months ahead. With the economy still exceedingly fragile — as measured by high unemployment and economic growth projections that are well below historical recovery rates — more stimulus is needed to ensure that it does not backslide as last year's stimulus fades. ..." A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Feb 10 - 10:25 AM LH: People put forth the facts they believe to be true in an effort to refute the facts that they believe to be untrue. Do you say that is wrong? (smile) Okay, Sawzaw, first of all.... There is no such thing as an "untrue fact"! Think about it. ;-) There are often incorrect interpretations of a situation, however, built upon collecting only certain facts, ignoring other facts, misunderstanding the relationship between a variety of different facts, getting your facts in the wrong order, etc, and thereby coming to a faulty conclusion. I'll give you a very simple example of this: 1. A great many people wear blue jeans. Fact! 2. Crimes are often committed by people wearing blue jeans. Fact! 3. Erroneous Conclusion based on above facts: Wearing blue jeans causes people to become criminals. Wrong! ;-) You see? Two completely irrefutable facts followed by a completely idiotic and incorrect conclusion, driven by lazy and faulty thinking. This, in a somewhat less blatantly obvious way, is how we see politicians and ordinary people of all kinds using facts to back up completely erroneous conclusions and various silly opinions they have. You cannot be sure of something until: 1. You have ALL the relevant facts about it. 2. You interpret them in a completely correct fashion. People usually have a whole set of prior prejudices that deeply color and affect the way they sift through, select, reject, and interpret a huge variety of facts that are all around them. They usually MAKE the facts serve their prejudices rather than being truly objective about the situation. I don't think I have ever yet encountered a completely unbiased person...nor have I ever encountered anyone who really had ALL the facts (about anything). Therefore, I am well aware of how questionable most people's opinions are...and how feeble is their mastery of the available facts. It's downright funny, as a matter of fact, how seriously most people take their opinions, considering how deeply lacking they are in both genuine objectivity or fairness, how utterly prejudiced they are right from the start, and how pitifully inadequate is their knowledge of all the relevant facts involved. It's hilarious. That's why I gain a great deal of amusement by reading threads like this one or any other political thread. On the one hand, it's pretty serious stuff...and it can get you down. On the other hand, it never ceases to be darkly humorous at the same time how people who really know so little about the whole situation in front of them can take themselves so goddamn seeeeeriously! Obama doesn't give a shit what anyone on this thread thinks. This thread will change nothing. It's just an exercise in people blowing off steam and I know it. But I read it, because it's funny. Carry on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 19 Feb 10 - 11:46 PM It was good Amos but what the American people want is meat and taters on the table. They want jobs and they want the economy on track and not a bunch of deficit spending. That is why they voted for him. He said he would take care of it. They don't want to hear about the last eight years over and over and over and over. The Dalai Lama can take a back seat. LH: People put forth the facts they believe to be true in an effort to refute the facts that they believe to be untrue. Do you say that is wrong? I like the Dalai Lama. He is not a pompous know it all and down to earth. If I remember it right: Carl Sagan asked him what would he do if reincarnation was disproved by science. The Dalai Lama answered Then we would stop teaching it immediately. Then he thought and said How would you go about disproving reincarnation? as if he wanted to actually test it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 19 Feb 10 - 05:57 PM WAPO (blog): President Obama has taken plenty of criticism for downgrading U.S. support for human rights and its defenders. So he should get some credit for what he did yesterday: not just a meeting with TibetÕs Dalai Lama, despite furious rhetoric from China, but a second encounter with a group of two dozen human rights defenders from around the world. The gathering in the White HouseÕs Roosevelt room included activists from a host of countries where the defense of freedom is a dangerous enterprise: Iran, Belarus, Venezuela and Zimbabwe, among others. More significantly, some were from countries that are U.S. allies, such as Pakistan, Egypt and Indonesia. ObamaÕs State Department has been widely criticized -- and rightly so -- for downgrading support for human rights in those countries; for example, it has allowed Egypt to have a veto over which groups can receive funding under Agency for International Development democracy programs. Though both meetings were closed, the statements issued afterward suggested that the activists pressed Obama on his record so far. According to a statement issued by Freedom House, one of the organizers of the gathering, they Òdescribed the increasing repression against them and encouraged the president to play a greater leadership role in defending fundamental freedoms of association, expression and assembly.Ó The Dalai Lama told reporters he was Òvery happyÓ with his hour-long session, even though Obama did not publicly appear with him or allow photographs. That was mostly in keeping with the practice of past presidents, though George W. Bush presented the Dalai Lama with the Congressional Gold Medal at the Capitol in 2007. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 19 Feb 10 - 04:40 PM Sounds like a safe summation of pretty well any thread out there, Art. ;-D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,GUEST-Art Thieme at the library Date: 19 Feb 10 - 04:29 PM This is the first time I've looked into this thread. Some of you have said good things that I agree with. The rest have said a load of tripe! Art |
